Last year alone, David Mitchell paid $16,525 for 12 little bottles of Pomalyst, one of the pricey medications that treat his multiple myeloma, a blood cancer he was diagnosed with in 2010.

The drugs have kept his cancer at bay. But their rapidly increasing costs so infuriated Mitchell that he was inspired to create an advocacy movement.

Patients for Affordable Drugs, which he founded in 2016, was instrumental in getting drug price reforms into the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Those changes are kicking in now, and Mitchell, 73, is an early beneficiary.

In January, he plunked down $3,308 for a Pomalyst refill “and that’s it,” he said. Under the law, he has no further responsibility for his drug costs this year — a savings of more than $13,000.

The law caps out-of-pocket spending on brand-name drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at about $3,500 in 2024. The patient cap for all drugs drops to $2,000 next year.

“From a selfish perspective, I feel great about it,” he said. But the payment cap will be “truly life-changing” for hundreds of thousands of other Medicare patients, Mitchell said.

President Joe Biden’s battle against high drug prices is mostly embodied in the IRA, as the law is known — a grab bag of measures intended to give Medicare patients immediate relief and, in the long term, to impose government controls on what pharmaceutical companies charge for their products. The law represents the most significant overhaul for the U.S. drug marketplace in decades.

With Election Day on the horizon, the president is trying to make sure voters know who was responsible. This month, the White House began a campaign to get the word out to seniors.

“The days where Americans pay two to three times what they pay for prescription drugs in other countries are ending,” Biden said in a Feb. 1 statement.

KFF polling indicates Biden has work to do. Just a quarter of adults were aware that the IRA includes provisions on drug prices in July, nearly a year after the president signed it. He isn’t helped by the name of the law, the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which says nothing about health care or drug costs.

Biden’s own estimate of drug price inflation is quite conservative: U.S. patients sometimes pay more than 10 times as much for their drugs compared with people in other countries. The popular weight loss drug Wegovy lists for $936 a month in the U.S., for example — and $83 in France.

Additional sections of the law provide free vaccines and $35-a-month insulin and federal subsidies to patients earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level, and require drugmakers to pay the government rebates for medicines whose prices rise faster than inflation. But the most controversial provision enables Medicare to negotiate prices for certain expensive drugs that have been on the market for at least nine years. It’s key to Biden’s attempt to weaken the drug industry’s grip.

Responding to Pressure

The impact of Medicare’s bargaining over drug prices for privately insured Americans remains unclear. States have taken additional steps, such as cutting copays for insulin for the privately insured.

However, insurers are increasing premiums in response to their higher costs under the IRA. Monthly premiums on traditional Medicare drug plans jumped to $48 from $40 this year, on average.

On Feb. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent pharmaceutical makers opening bids for the first 10 expensive drugs it selected for negotiation. The companies are responding to the bids — while filing nine lawsuits that aim to kill the negotiations altogether, arguing that limiting their profits will strangle the pipeline of lifesaving drugs. A federal court in Texas dismissed one of the suits on Feb. 12, without taking up the substantive legal issue over constitutionality.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the IRA’s drug pricing elements would save the federal government $237 billion over 10 years while reducing the number of drugs coming to market in that period by about two.

If the government prevails in the courts, new prices for those 10 drugs will be announced by September and take effect in 2026. The government will negotiate an additional 15 drugs for 2027, another 15 for 2028, and 20 more each year thereafter. CMS has been mum about the size of its offers, but AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot on Feb. 8 called the opening bid for his company’s drug Farxiga (which earned $2.8 billion in U.S. sales in fiscal year 2023) “relatively encouraging.”

Related Biden administration efforts, as well as legislation with bipartisan support, could complement the Inflation Reduction Act’s swing at drug prices.

The House and Senate have passed bills that require greater transparency and less self-serving behavior by pharmacy benefit managers, the secretive intermediaries that decide which drugs go on patients’ formularies, the lists detailing which prescriptions are available to health plan enrollees. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating anti-competitive action by leading PBMs, as well as drug company patenting tricks that slow the entry of cheaper drugs to the market.

‘Sending a Message’

Months after drug companies began suing to stop price negotiations, the Biden administration released a framework describing when it could “march in” and essentially seize drugs created through research funded by the National Institutes of Health if they are unreasonably priced.

The timing of the march-in announcement “suggests that it’s about sending a message” to the drug industry, said Robin Feldman, who leads the Center for Innovation at the University of California Law-San Francisco. And so, in a way, does the Inflation Reduction Act itself, she said.

“I have always thought that the IRA would reverberate well beyond the unlucky 10 and others that get pulled into the net later,” Feldman said. “Companies are likely to try to moderate their behavior to stay out of negotiations. I think of all the things going on as attempts to corral the market into more reasonable pathways.”

The IRA issues did not appear to be top of mind to most executives and investors as they gathered to make deals at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco last month.

“I think the industry is navigating its way beyond this,” said Matthew Price, chief operating officer of Promontory Therapeutics, a cancer drug startup, in an interview there. The drugs up for negotiation “look to be assets that were already nearing the end of their patent life. So maybe the impact on revenues is less than feared. There’s alarm around this, but it was probably inevitable that a negotiation mechanism of some kind would have to come in.”

Investors generally appear sanguine about the impact of the law. A recent S&P Global report suggests “healthy revenue growth through 2027” for the pharmaceutical industry.

Back in Washington, many of the changes await action by the courts and Congress and could be shelved depending on the results of the fall election.

The restructuring of Medicare Part D, which covers most retail prescription drugs, is already lowering costs for many Medicare patients who spent more than $3,500 a year on their Part D drugs. In 2020 that was about 1.3 million patients, 200,000 of whom spent $5,000 or more out-of-pocket, according to KFF research.

“That’s real savings,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of KFF’s Medicare policy program, “and it’s targeted to people who are really sick.”

Although the drug industry is spending millions to fight the IRA, the Part D portion of the bill could end up boosting their sales. While it forces the industry to further discount the highest-grossing drugs, the bill makes it easier for Medicare patients to pick up their medicines because they’ll be able to afford them, said Stacie Dusetzina, a Vanderbilt University School of Medicine researcher. She was the lead author of a 2022 study showing that cancer patients who didn’t get income subsidies were about half as likely to fill prescriptions.

States and foundations that help patients pay for their drugs will save money, enabling them to procure more drugs for more patients, said Gina Upchurch, the executive director of Senior PharmAssist, a Durham, North Carolina-based drug assistance program, and a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. “This is good news for the drug companies,” she said.

Relief for Patients

Lynn Scarfuto, 73, a retired nurse who lives on a fixed income in upstate New York, spent $1,157 for drugs last year, while most of her share of the $205,000 annual cost for the leukemia drug Imbruvica was paid by a charity, the Patient Access Network Foundation. This year, through the IRA, she’ll pay nothing because the foundation’s first monthly Imbruvica payment covered her entire responsibility. Imbruvica, marketed jointly by AbbVie and Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is one of the 10 drugs subject to Medicare negotiations.

“For Medicare patients, the Inflation Reduction Act is a great, wonderful thing,” Scarfuto said. “I hope the negotiation continues as they have promised, adding more drugs every year.”

Mitchell, a PR specialist who had worked with such clients as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and pharmaceutical giant J&J, went to an emergency room with severe back pain in November 2010 and discovered he had a cancer that had broken a vertebra and five ribs and left holes in his pelvis, skull, and forearm bones. He responded well to surgery and treatment but was shocked at the price of his drugs.

His Patients for Affordable Drugs group has become a powerful voice in Washington, engaging tens of thousands of patients, including Scarfuto, to tell their stories and lobby legislatures. The work is supported in part by millions in grants from Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy that has supported health care policies like lower drug prices, access to contraception, and solutions to the opioid epidemic.

“What got the IRA over the finish line in part was angry people who said we want something done with this,” Mitchell said. “Our patients gave voice to that.”

Arnold Ventures has provided funding for KFF Health News.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

A federal judge in Texas has turned back the first challenge to the nascent Medicare prescription-drug negotiation program. But the case turned on a technicality, and drugmakers have many more lawsuits in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, Congress is approaching yet another funding deadline, and doctors hope the next funding bill will cancel the Medicare pay cut that took effect in January.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced she would retire at the end of the congressional session, setting off a scramble to chair a panel with significant oversight of Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. Public Health Service. McMorris Rodgers is one of several Republicans with significant health expertise to announce their departures.
• As Congress’ next spending bill deadline approaches, lobbyists for hospitals are feverishly trying to prevent a Medicare provision on “site-neutral” payments from being attached.
• In abortion news, anti-abortion groups are joining the call for states to better outline when life and health exceptions to abortion bans can be legally permissible.
• Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate a company that collected location data from patients at 600 Planned Parenthood sites and sold it to anti-abortion groups.
• And in “This Week in Health Misinformation”: Lawmakers in Wyoming and Montana float bills to let people avoid getting blood transfusions from donors who have been vaccinated against covid-19.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Stateline’s “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are,” by Anna Claire Vollers.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘There Was a Lot of Anxiety’: Florida’s Immigration Crackdown Is Causing Patients to Skip Care,” by Arek Sarkissian.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “FTC Doubles Down in Welsh Carson Anesthesia Case to Limit Private Equity’s Physician Buyouts,” by Bob Herman. And Modern Healthcare’s “Private Equity Medicare Advantage Investment Slumps: Report,” by Nona Tepper.

Lauren Weber: The Wall Street Journal’s “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “U.S. Investigates Alleged Medicare Fraud Scheme Estimated at $2 Billion,” by Dan Diamond, Lauren Weber, and Dan Keating.
• Super Bowl ads from Pfizer, Power to the Patients, and the American Values 2024 super PAC.
• KFF Health News’ “Rapper Fat Joe Says No One Is Making Sure Hospitals Post Their Prices,” by Julie Appleby.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug Negotiations

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug NegotiationsEpisode Number: 334Published: Feb. 15, 2024

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 15, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but we do have a special Valentine’s Day surprise. But first, the news. We’re going to start this week in federal district court, where the drug industry has lost its first legal challenge to the Biden administration’s Medicare drug price negotiation program, although on a technicality. Rachel, which case was this, and now what happens?

Cohrs: This was the capital “P” PhRMA trade association. And this case was a little bit of a stretch, anyways, because they were trying to find some way to get a judge in Texas to hear it. Because the broader strategy is for companies and trade groups to spread out across the country and try to get conflicting decisions from these lower courts.

Rovner: Which would force the Supreme Court to take it?

Cohrs: Exactly, yes. Or make it more likely. So PhRMA, in this case, they had recruited, there’s a national group that represents infusion centers and that was headquartered in Texas. The judge ultimately ended up ruling that this association didn’t follow the right procedure to qualify for judicial review and threw them off the case. And then they were like, well, if you throw them off the case, then there’s nobody in Texas, you can’t hear this here. So that was the ultimate decision there, but this could come back up. It was dismissed without prejudice. So this isn’t the end of the road for this lawsuit.

And it’s important to keep in mind that this wasn’t a ruling on any of the substance of the arguments. And trade groups generally are going to have less of an argument for standing, or it’s going to be a harder argument than the companies themselves that actually have drugs up for negotiation.

Rovner: And they’re suing too, the drug companies?

Cohrs: They are suing too. Yeah, just for everybody to keep on your calendars, there’s a judge in New Jersey who is hoping to have a quadruple oral argument on four of these cases, so stay tuned. That could be coming early next month. But these are very much moving. I think we are going to get insight on some of these arguments pretty soon, but this case is not quite that test case yet.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ll get to it eventually. Well, moving on to Capitol Hill. When we were taping last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders was holding his much-publicized hearing to grill drug company CEOs about their too-high prices. Rachel, you were there. Did anything significant happen?

Cohrs: I think it was kind of expected. I don’t think we were trying to find any innovative legislative solutions here. Honestly, it seemed, just from a candid take, that a lot of these lawmakers were not very well-prepared for questioning. There were a couple of notable exceptions, but we didn’t learn a whole lot new about why drug prices are high in the United States, how our system works differently from other countries.

I did find some useful nuggets in the CEO’s testimony about how low the net prices are for some of their medications, that they’re already offering a 70% discount, a 90% discount, which to me just kind of put into perspective some of the discounts we could be hearing in the Medicare negotiation program. That oh, even if it’s a 90% discount, that might not even be different from what they’re paying now. So just interesting to file a way for the future, but I think it was mostly a non-event for the CEOs who, for some reason, had to, under the threat of subpoena, come make these arguments. So it seemed like much ado about not a whole lot of substance.

Rovner: That was sort of my theory going in, but you always have to watch just in case. Well, also on Capitol Hill, the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee announced she will retire at the end of the Congress. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who’s a Republican from Washington, was in her first term as chair of the committee that oversees parts of Medicare, all of Medicaid, as well as the entire U.S. Public Health Service.

I imagine this is going to set off a good bit of jockeying to take her place. And why would somebody step down early from such a powerful position? Do we have any idea?

Cohrs: Have you seen …? Oh, go ahead.

Ollstein: Facing Congress is what you say? Yes. This is part of a wave of retirements we’ve been seeing recently, including from some other committee chairs who could have theoretically continued to be powerful committee chairs for several years to come. People are taking this as part of the bad sign for Republicans. Either a sign that they don’t believe they’re going to hold the majority after this November’s election, or they’re just so fed up with the struggles they’ve had governing over the last few years and the inability to get anything done. And people are thinking, well, maybe I can get something done in a different role, not in Congress, because certainly, we’re not doing too much here to be proud of.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like Cathy McMorris Rodgers is kind of this poster child for a very conservative Republican who’s not the far-right-wing MAGA type, who actually wants to do legislation. She just wants to do Republican legislation, and that seems to be getting harder in the House.

Ollstein: Right, right. And there’s a concern that, particularly on the right within Republicans, that we’re losing a health policy brain trust. We’re losing the people that have been really integral to a lot of the nitty-gritty policy work over the years, and they’re not being replaced with people who have that interest. They’re being replaced with people who are more focused on culture wars and other things. And so there’s concern in the future about the ability to cobble together things like Medicare reimbursement rates, or these technical things that aren’t really part of the culture wars.

Rovner: Yeah, I think we mentioned at some point that Mike Burgess is also retiring, also high up on the Energy and Commerce Committee. And he’s a doctor who’s really had his hands into some of this really nerdy stuff, like on Medicare physician reimbursement. And that will be obviously just a big loss of institutional memory there.

Cohrs: For the future of the committee, I know congressman Brett Guthrie has kind of thrown his hat in the ring to succeed her. Unclear who exactly is going to win this race, but he is the chairman of the health subcommittee, does bring some health expertise. So the E&C committee deals with a lot of different priorities, but if he were to succeed her, then I think we would see, at least at the top of the committee, some of the expertise remain.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in all of this jockeying, the next round of temporary government funding bills expires on March 1 and March 8, respectively, which is getting pretty close. And that brings back efforts to cancel the 3.4% pay cut that doctors got for Medicare patients in January. Where are we on funding, and are any of these health issues that people are out lobbying on going to make it into this next round? Is there going to be a next round?

Cohrs: Yeah, we don’t know if there’s going to be a next round, I don’t think. But at least the sources I’ve talked to have said that a full cancellation of the 3.4% cut for Medicare or payments to doctors is off the table at this point. They are hoping to do some sort of partial relief. They haven’t decided on percentages for that yet. And it’s unclear how much money will be available from pay-fors. It is still very much squishy, not finalized, two, three weeks out from the deadline, but I think …

Rovner: Two weeks.

Cohrs: There is some agreement on some relief, which has not been the case thus far for doctors. So I think that’s a positive sign.

Ollstein: Yeah. Overall, the chatter is about the need for yet another CR [continuing resolution] because the work is not getting done in time to meet these deadlines. That seems to be where we’re headed. Obviously, that will piss off a lot of members on the right who don’t want another CR, who didn’t want the last couple CRs. And so once again, we are staring down a possible shutdown.

Rovner: And I had forgotten, somebody reminded me, that even if they get another temporary funding bill, starting in April, there are automatic cuts if they’re not finished with this year’s funding bills. Which, I don’t know, is there any indication that they’re going to be finished with them by April either? I have not seen a lot of progress here. They’ve been fighting over other things, which is fine to fight over other things, but I’m not noticing a lot happening on the spending bills.

I’m seeing a lot of shaking heads. I guess nobody else is noticing either. Well, we will obviously keep watching that space because next week, we will only be one week away.

Well, another Medicare policy that supporters are hoping to get into one or another of these spending bills is creating something called more site-neutral payments in Medicare. Currently, Medicare pays hospitals and hospital outpatient departments, and sometimes even hospital-owned physician practices, more than it pays non-hospital affiliated providers for the exact same service.

The theory is that hospitals need higher payments because they have higher fixed costs, like keeping emergency rooms open 24/7. But it costs Medicare many billions of taxpayer dollars for this differential in payments. And this has become quite the lobbying frenzy for the hospital industry, yes?

Cohrs: Yes. I think it’s something that they can all get on board with hating, and I think they view it similarly to the drug pricing debate as a slippery slope. The policy Congress really is looking at now is a $3 billion, very small slice of all the services that could potentially be subjected to site-neutral payments. But the whole pie here is $150 billion potentially for Medicare.

We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars for commercial payments. So I think they are really pushing to get to lawmakers, especially, from what I’ve talked to Senate Republicans, they are just not on board with it, they’re worried about the rural hospitals. And if they can connect to those things, which they have been successful in doing so far, they’re just not going to get very far.

I mean, if you look at the Senate Finance Committee, you have Mike Crapo from Idaho, Republican leadership. You have [John] Barrasso from Wyoming. There’s really just so many rural states that even Chuck Grassley, who is a moderate on a lot of health policy issues, talked about his rural hospitals in Iowa as soon as I asked him about this. So they’re not there yet right now, but I think hospitals are trying to keep it that way.

Rovner: And it was ever thus that the Senate is much more rural-focused than the House because pretty much every single senator has at least part of a rural area that they represent. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I always find it funny when rural hospitals come up as a cudgel by the big hospital associations, who don’t seem to look out for them the vast majority of the time when they’re closing. But as you pointed out, the Senate is much more rural-focused. So I do agree with all of you all, that I question whether or not this will have much ground to gain.

Rovner: Yeah. And the other thing that I keep wanting to point out is that there’s all this talk on Capitol Hill among Republicans of cutting the spending bills, the appropriations, and we’re going to balance the budget. Well, there’s just not enough money in the appropriation bills to do anything to the deficit. The money is in things like Medicare. I mean, that’s where, if you really want to make a dent in the deficit, you’re going to do it. And, as we’re seeing with this particular fight, every time they want to do something that’s going to save money, it’s going to hurt somebody. And I mean, there are obviously legitimate concerns about rural hospitals that are in trouble, particularly in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, but that’s one of the reasons. It’s not so much the spending bills that make it hard to do anything about the deficit. It’s fights like these.

Meanwhile, for better or worse, another reason that Medicare costs so much is that it’s subject to a lot of fraud. Lauren, I have seen a lot of Medicare fraud stories over the years, but you’ve got one that was discovered in a pretty novel way. So tell us about it.

Weber: Yeah, my colleagues Dan Diamond, Dan Keating, and I found out early last week — we got a tip from the National Association of ACOs [Accountable Care Organizations] saying that they had seen this massive spike in catheter billing. When we did some digging into the companies they had identified — and to be clear, that spike of catheter billing was worth an alleged $2 billion in billings to Medicare. So when we talk about site-neutral payments, that’s almost what you would get for site-neutral payments: the $2 billion in Medicare fraud, but regardless.

So my colleagues and I dug in. So Dan, Dan, and I called around, and we found links between the seven companies that were charging Medicare for catheters that folks never received. I want to point out, I spoke to this lovely woman in Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida. She’s 74, Aileen Hatcher, who spotted this diligently going through her Medicare form, but as she said, she went to her — literally, these are her words — she’s like, “I went to my old lady luncheon and told them all this was on my Medicare statement.” And they said, “Oh, we don’t read those because we don’t pay Medicare the money. So we don’t read the explanation of benefits to see what we’ve been charged.”

And, unfortunately, I think that is what happens a lot of times with Medicare fraud. It goes unnoticed because folks aren’t the ones paying the dollars. But the bottom line is this was so large and so many people called into Medicare that Dan and I discovered that there is an ongoing federal investigation. Three of the companies, former owners that I called, confirmed to me that FBI had interviewed them or was talking to them about these folks that had taken over the companies and started charging Medicare this much money. And Dan also got some sources on that front as well.

So, I mean, it’s a pretty massive Medicare fraud scheme. I’ll give a call-out here. If anyone here has been affected by catheter and Medicare fraud, please give me an email. We’d love to hear more. I think it speaks to the fact that Medicare fraud — we all know this because we cover this — Medicare fraud is as old as time. It continues to happen, especially durable medical equipment Medicare fraud. But this is so much money. And it is wild that even though we talked to so many people that called Medicare over and over and over again, these folks were able to get away with billing for a very long time.

Rovner: What I found really fascinating about the story, though, is that it was the doctors in the ACOs that spotted it because — we’ve talked about these accountable care organizations — they’re accountable for how much it costs to take care of their patients.

The patients aren’t paying for it, as they point out, but these doctors, it’s coming right out of their bonuses and what they’re charged and how much they get for Medicare. So there’s finally somebody with a real incentive to spot this kind of fraud, because, basically, it was taking money from them. Right?

Weber: That’s exactly right. I think that’s why they were so hot to have some movement on this because, as they pointed out, they could lose millions of dollars in bonuses for better taking care of their patients.

It’s wild that it gets to this point. Like I said, we had all these people that called in to Medicare and many fraud lawyers we talked to said, “Look, why aren’t the NPIs [National Provider Identifiers] turned off?” Great question.

Rovner: Yeah. Anyway, I was fascinated by this story, and as I told Lauren earlier, I’m not a big fan of Medicare fraud stories just because there are so many of them. But this one is like, oh, maybe we finally have somebody … the ACOs can become bounty hunters for Medicare fraud, which would not be a bad thing.

All right, well, moving on to abortion this week, we have spent a lot of time talking about how doctors who perform abortions and patients who need them in emergencies have been trying to get state officials to spell out when the exceptions to state bans apply. Well, now it seems that it’s the other side looking for clarification.

Stat News reports that several anti-abortion groups have joined doctors and patients in urging the Texas Medical Board to spell out which conditions would qualify for the exception to the ban, and not subject doctors who guess wrong to potential prison terms and loss of their medical licenses.

Meanwhile, legislation moving through the House in South Dakota, endorsed by multiple anti-abortion groups, would require the state to make a video explaining how its ban works and under what circumstances. Alice, what’s going on here?

Ollstein: I think it’s this interesting confluence and it’s an interesting development because, at first, anti-abortion groups were insisting that the laws were perfectly clear. And that doctors were either willfully or mistakenly misinterpreting them. As more and more stories came forward of women being turned away while experiencing a medical emergency and suffering harm as a result, a lot of those women are part of lawsuits now.

They were saying the law is fine. In some cases, these anti-abortion groups wrote the laws themselves or advised on them saying, your interpretation is what’s wrong. The law is fine. But I think as so many of these stories are coming out, that’s not proving enough. And now they’re going back and saying, OK, well, maybe there do need to be some clarifications. They don’t want changes. There’s different camps because some people do want changes. Some people say, OK, we need more exceptions. We need more carve-outs to avoid these painful stories. Whereas other anti-abortion forces and elected officials say, no, we don’t need to change the law. We just need to clarify it and explain it. And so I think that’s going to be an ongoing tension.

Rovner: Yeah, I know one of the big themes earlier in this whole fight — I won’t say earlier this year, it was mostly last year — was redefining things as not abortions. That if you’re terminating an ectopic pregnancy, that’s not an abortion. Well, that is an abortion.

Ollstein: Medically, yes.

Rovner: So apparently, the … right. The renaming has not worked so far. So now I guess they’re trying to clarify things. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, when you kick things to the medical board, I think people see that as an unbiased unpolitical organization. But medical boards are often appointed by the governor. So, in this case, Gov. [Greg] Abbott. And also take Ohio, for example: I believe that one of their medical board leaders is the head of the right-to-life movement.

I haven’t looked at Texas’. But kicking it to the medical board to make a decision — putting aside the fact that most medical boards are incredibly inadequate at their actual job, which is disciplining doctors, they’re not necessarily known for their competence — is that you also deal with some of the politics involved in this as well.

Rovner: So in South Dakota, it would kick this to the South Dakota Department of Health, which, of course, is controlled by the governor, who’s a Republican and pro-lifer. And so it’s hard to imagine what sort of doing a video explaining this is going to do to clarify things any further than they already think the law has gone. But at least … I’m fascinated by the effort here, that this is going on in multiple states. Speaking of state legislators, in Missouri, they’re working on a bill to create an abortion ban exception for children 12 and under — obviously thinking of the 10-year-old in Ohio in 2022 [who] had to go to Indiana to get a pregnancy terminated. But one Republican state senator complained that “a 1-year-old could get an abortion under this.” This is a serious question: Should legislators have to pass a basic biology test to make laws about reproductive health? As we know, 1-year-olds cannot get pregnant.

Ollstein: I mean, this was a more glaring example. We see this over and over in a lot more subtle ways, too, where doctors and medical societies are pointing out that these laws are drafted using language that is not medically accurate at all. And it can be small things in terms of when someone should qualify for a medical exemption to an abortion ban. Some states have language around if it would cause “irreversible damage.” That’s not a term doctors use in that circumstance, things like that. Or a major bodily function would be impaired if they don’t get an abortion. Well, what is a major bodily function? That’s not defined. And so, yes, this was an almost laughable example of this, but I think that it’s a sign of something more pervasive and maybe less obvious.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I have listened to a lot of state debates with a lot of legislators saying things that are, as I say, kind of laughably inaccurate. Sorry, Lauren.

Weber: Oh, I would just say as a Missourian and as someone who lived in Missouri until a year ago, this gentleman, in particular, it does seem like has a history of making somewhat inflammatory statements that he knows will be picked up by the media. I mean, I think he brought a flamethrower to an event. I mean, I think that’s part of the shtick. But welcome to Missouri politics. You never know what you’re going to get.

Ollstein: And of course, we have the famous assertion that people can’t get pregnant as a result of rape because the body knows how to shut it down, which is obviously not …

Rovner: Which happened in a Missouri Senate race.

Ollstein: Yes. Yep. Exactly. So Missouri, once again, covering itself in glory.

Rovner: All right, well, something we haven’t talked about a lot recently are crisis pregnancy centers, which are usually storefronts for anti-abortion organizations that often lure women seeking abortions by offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds so that they can then talk them into carrying their pregnancies to term. The centers are getting more and more public support from states. One estimate is that government support totaled some $344 million in fiscal 2022. So that was a couple of years back. And increasingly as abortion clinics close in states with bans, crisis pregnancy centers, which typically don’t have medical professionals on staff and aren’t technically medical facilities, may be the only resource available to pregnant women. It seems that could have some pretty serious ramifications. Yes?

Ollstein: I mean, I think people don’t realize just how vast the network of these centers are. They outnumber abortion clinics by a lot in a lot of states, including states that support abortion rights. They’re very, very pervasive. And this is becoming a huge focus for the anti-abortion movement. It was basically the theme of this year’s March for Life, was these sort of resources. In part, it is an attempt to show a kinder face of the movement and change public opinion. Obviously, like we discussed, there are all these painful stories coming out about people being denied care. And so promoting these stories of places that provide some form of something, some services, it’s not necessarily medical care, but …

Rovner: They provide diapers and strollers and car seats. I mean, they do actually … many of them actually provide services for babies once they’re born.

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. And so I think there is going to be a huge focus on this in the policy space, both in terms of directing more taxpayer funding to these centers, which progressives vehemently oppose.

And so I think this is going to be a big focus going forward. It already has in Texas. Texas has directed a lot of money towards what they call alternatives to abortion, which include these centers. And so I think it’s going to be a big focus going forward.

Rovner: Well, one other thing about crisis pregnancy centers, because they are not medical facilities, they are not subject to HIPAA medical privacy rules. And it turns out that is important. According to an investigation by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, a company gathered and sold location data for people whose phones were in or around 600 separate Planned Parenthood locations, without the patients’ consent, to use an anti-abortion advertising.

Wyden is asking the SEC and the FTC to investigate the company, but this raises broader questions about information privacy, particularly in the reproductive health space. I remember right after Roe v. Wade was overturned, there were lots of warnings to women who were using period-tracking apps and other things about the concern about people who you may not want to know your private medical situation being able to find out your private medical situations. Is there any indication that there’s any way from the federal government point of view to crack down on this?

Ollstein: So I don’t know about that specifically, but there is a bigger effort on privacy and digital privacy and how it relates to abortion. We’re still waiting on the release of the final HIPAA rule from the Biden administration, which will extend more protections around abortion data, I think. But, because it’s HIPAA, it does only apply to certain entities and these centers are not among them. Another area I’ve been hearing concern about is research. A researcher at a university who is studying people who have abortions or don’t have abortions, their data is not protected. And so they are very stressed out about that, and that’s compromising medical research right now. So there’s a lot of these different areas of concern. And as we so often see, technology evolves a hell of a lot faster than government evolves to regulate it and address it. And that is just an ongoing concern.

Rovner: Yes, it is. And at some point, we’ll talk about artificial intelligence, but not today. Actually, right now, I want to turn to the Super Bowl. Yes, the Super Bowl. In between all the ads for blockbuster movies, beer, cars, and snack foods, and, right, a football game, there were three ads aimed directly at health policy issues.

In one, the nonprofit price transparency advocacy group Power to the Patients got musicians Jelly Roll, Lainey Wilson, and Valerie June to basically call hospitals and insurance companies greedy. It’s not clear to me if this was a free PSA or if this group paid for it, but I suspect the latter.

Does anybody know who this group is? They seem to have lots of access to big names for what seems to be a kind of obscure health issue. I mean, everybody’s for transparency, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Super Bowl ad about it.

Cohrs: This is not their first Super Bowl. It’s backed by Cynthia Fisher who is married to the CEO of Sam Adams, parent company. And he’s also a member of the Koch family. But she has been passionate about health care price transparency for years. I mean, was in President [Donald] Trump’s ear, has made the legal argument that the authority existed under the Affordable Care Act. Lobbied to get these regulations passed. And she has definitely employed unusual or unorthodox techniques, like Super Bowl ads, like painting murals, like hosting parties and concerts for health staff and health policy people in D.C. And I think she’s also lobbying for the codification of these transparency regulations.

And it is a little wonky, but I think her frustration is that she lobbied so hard to get these price transparency regulations and everyday people don’t even know that it should be available for them. And obviously academics disagree over how useful that information is for everyday people. But I think she has just taken it upon herself to do the PR campaign for these regulations that she believes could help people make more educated decisions about care that isn’t necessarily emergency care, like MRIs, that kind of thing. So she’s been around for years and has been very active.

I think Fat Joe is another celebrity that she’s brought onto the case. Jelly Roll — I hadn’t seen him do an event with her before or an ad. But I think there’s an ever-expanding cast of celebrities where this is just … it seems like a pretty noncontroversial issue. So I mean, Busta Rhymes, like French Montana, there’s been a lot of people involved in this campaign and I expect it to be ongoing.

Rovner: I feel like she’s kind of the Mark Cuban of price transparency, where Mark Cuban is all into drug prices. Alice, you want to add something?

Ollstein: Well, it’s just funny to me because, as we’ve discussed many, many times on this podcast, transparency goes not very far in helping actual patients. And so it’s funny that a group called Power to the Patients is going all in on this issue when, as we know, the vast majority of health care people need they cannot shop around for and, even when they can, it’s not something people are always able or willing to do.

And so transparency gets a lot of bipartisan support and sounds good in theory, but we’ve seen in terms of what’s been implemented so far in terms of hospital prices, et cetera, that it doesn’t do that much to bring down prices or empower people.

Rovner: Although, I don’t know, getting famous people to care about health policy can’t be a terrible thing. Lauren, did you want to add something too?

Weber: No, I just wanted to say, I mean, I will say as much as we’re all clear on price transparency, what this all means, the Super Bowl is a new audience. So, I mean, if you’re going to spend your money, at least you’re spending it — and that was the most watched TV program, I believe, of all time — so you’re spending it in a way that you’re getting some eyeballs on it.

Rovner: All right, well, that was not the only ad. Next, a company that clearly did pay for its ad was Pfizer, which used a soundtrack by Queen and talking paintings and statues to celebrate science and declare war on cancer. This is also one I don’t think I had seen before. I mean, what is Pfizer up to here? I mean, obviously, Pfizer can afford a Super Bowl ad. There’s no question about that, but why would they want to?

Cohrs: I mean, Pfizer has not been performing great financially lately. And I think they pulled out of the lobbying organization biome and chose to spend money on a Super Bowl ad, which I think is a really interesting choice. I mean, I don’t know what the dues are, but a Super Bowl ad is an expensive thing.

And I think there has been this attack on science, as a whole, and I think there’s an outstanding question of how to rebuild trust. And I think that this was Pfizer’s unorthodox tactic of trying to equate themselves with more credible, historical scientists who are less controversial. Yeah, my colleague did a good story on it.

Rovner: Yeah, like Einstein.

Cohrs: Right.

Rovner: Well, we’ll link to all of these ads. If you haven’t seen them there, they’re definitely worth watching. Well, finally, and in keeping with the occasional politics that does creep into Super Bowl ads, the super PAC supporting the presidential candidacy of independent anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. paid $7 million for an ad that was basically a remake of the 1960 ad for his uncle John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president, which provoked an outcry from several of his Kennedy cousins who have repeatedly disavowed RFK Jr.’s candidacy and his causes.

For his part, the candidate apologized to his family members and said he didn’t have anything to do with the ad directly, because it was the super PAC. But then he pinned it to his Twitter profile, where he has more than 2½ followers. I can’t help but wonder if they’re going after football fans who actually believe the whole Taylor Swift-Travis Kelsey thing is a conspiracy.

No comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and pissing off his entire family? We will move ahead then.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, in “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have — drum roll — blood transfusions. Seems that there are a significant number of people who believe that getting blood from someone who has been vaccinated against covid, using the mRNA vaccines, will somehow change their DNA or otherwise harm them. And state legislators are listening.

In Wyoming, a state representative has introduced a bill that would require the labeling of blood from a covid-vaccinated donor. So prospective recipients could refuse it, at least in nonemergency situations. And in Montana, there’s a bill that would go even further, banning blood donations from the covid-vaccinated. That one appears to not be going anywhere, but this could have serious implications. It would create blood shortages, I imagine, even in rural areas where fewer people are vaccinated than in some of the urban areas. But I mean, this strikes me as not an insignificant kind of movement.

Ollstein: Well, it seems troubling on two fronts. One, we already have blood shortages and we already have dangerously low vaccination rates and not just covid vaccination rates. The hesitancy and anti-vax sentiment is spilling over into routine childhood vaccinations and all kinds of things.

And so I think anything that appears to give that sort of stigma and conspiracy a veneer of credibility, like state law for instance, threatens to further entrench those trends.

Rovner: All right, well, that is this week’s news. We will do our extra credits in a minute, but first, as promised, we have the winners of the KFF Health News “Health Policy Valentines” contest. This year’s winner, and we will post the link to the poem and its accompanying illustration, is from Jennifer Reck.

It goes, “Darling, this Valentine’s Day, let’s grab our passports and fly away to someplace where the same drugs cost a fraction of what they do in the States.” I have asked the panel to each choose a finalist of their own to read. So, Lauren, why don’t you start?

Weber: “The paperwork flirts with my affections, a dance of denials, full of rejections. My heart yearns for you, my sweet medication, but insurance insists on prior authorization.”

Rovner: And who’s that from?

Weber: That’s from Sally Nix. Excellent work, Sally.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: OK, I have one from Kara Gavin. It’s “My love for you, darling, is blinding / Like a clinical trial pre-findings / But I fear we shall part / And I’ll lose my heart/ Because of Medicaid unwinding!” Very topical.

Rovner: Very. Rachel.

Cohrs: OK, this is from Andrea Ferguson. “Parental love is beautiful and guess what makes it stronger? A paid parental leave policy to stay with baby longer.”

Rovner: Very nice. Thank you all who entered. And we’ll do this again next year. All right, now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: I have a piece from my colleague Arek Sarkissian, down in Florida, and it is about how the state’s immigration law is deterring immigrants from seeking health care. And one of the areas they’re most concerned about is maternal health care. We already are in a maternal health crisis and the law requires hospitals that receive Medicaid funding to ask people about their immigration status when they come in for care. What a lot of people don’t know is that they don’t have to answer, but this fear of being asked and potentially being flagged for deportation enforcement, et cetera, is making people avoid care. And so there’s just a lot of concern about this and a lot of attempts to educate folks in the immigrant community. Obviously, Florida has a very large immigrant community. And it just reminded me of the fears that were happening early in the pandemic when the public charge rule under Trump was in effect and it was deterring immigrants from seeking care.

And in the middle of a pandemic, when we’re dealing with an infectious disease that doesn’t care if you have citizenship or not, having a large segment of the population avoid care is dangerous for everyone.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: So I chose an article titled “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan in The Wall Street Journal. And, I mean, look, the insurers are — they’re looking out for their bottom line. And the bottom line is that climate change does have health impacts. So the question is, will that start to hit premiums? The sad answer, in part of this article, is that, unfortunately, the people often most affected by climate change don’t have health insurance. So that may not affect premiums as much as we expect, but I think this is a really fascinating test case of how when climate change comes for your money, you’ll start to see it validated more. So I’ll be curious to see how this plays out with the various health insurers.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously, we’re already seeing people not being able to get home insurance in places like Florida and California because of increasing fires and increasing hurricanes and increasing flooding in some places. Rachel?

Cohrs: So mine is a package deal. It’s two stories related to private equity investment in health care. The first is a piece in Modern Healthcare by Nona Tepper on a Medicare Advantage report by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project. And it just kind of highlighted the downturn in investment in Medicare Advantage, like marketing companies and brokers, consultants.

And I thought it was an interesting take because, I think so often, we see reporting about how private equity is expanding its investment in a certain sector. But this, I think, was an interesting indicator where, oh, it’s turning downward so dramatically. And I think that it’s interesting to track the tail end of more regulation or whatever rule comes out. How does that impact investment? And we talk a lot about that in the pharmaceutical space. But I thought this was a great interesting creative take on the Medicare Advantage side of things.

And also just highlighting some reporting from my colleague Bob Herman about the FTC doubling down on the Welsh Carson’s anesthesia case to limit private equity’s physician buyouts. So the FTC is taking on Welsh Carson, a powerful private equity firm, and other private equity firms asked for the case to be dismissed. And Bob does a great job breaking down these really complicated arguments by the FTC as to why they’re not backing down. They’re not going to cut a deal, they want this case to go forward.

So it will be interesting to watch as this develops, but I think Bob makes a great argument. There are applications for other cases as well and for the FTC and being able to attack these complex corporate arrangements where they’re using subsidiaries to drive prices up for physician services and other things. So definitely worth a read from Bob.

Rovner: Yes, another theme of the Federal Trade Commission getting more and more involved in health care in general and private equity in health care in particular. My extra credit this week is from Stateline by Anna Claire Vollers, and it’s called “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are.” It’s about how a growing number of states and cities are buying up and forgiving medical debt for their residents. Backers of the plans point out that medical debt is a societal problem that deserves a societal solution. And that relieving people’s debt burdens can actually add to economic growth. So it’s a good return on a small investment. It’s obviously not going to solve the medical debt problem, but it may well buy some government goodwill for some of the people of these states and cities.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and to Stephanie Stapleton, filling in this week as our editor. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Lauren, where are you these days?

Weber: Still just on Twitter @LaurenWeberHP, or X, I guess.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: On X @AliceOllstein and on Bluesky @alicemiranda.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and also getting more engaged on LinkedIn lately. So feel free to follow me there.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

WASHINGTON — Two Republican lawmakers who introduced legislation to water down the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program managed to find themselves a Democratic co-sponsor — even though every single Democrat in Congress in 2022 voted for the legislation.

They found their perfect candidate in Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat representing a North Carolina district that includes parts of the state’s Research Triangle. He came to Washington in 2023, so didn’t vote on the original law. He received donations in 2023 from the political action committees for Gilead, Astellas, Genentech, Bayer, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, BIO, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

“We must support the development of critical, life-sustaining medical treatments and cures,” Davis said in a written statement, and a spokesperson declined to elaborate. He is joined on the bill by Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) and Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee chairman.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

The Supreme Court in March will hear oral arguments in two very different cases that boil down to the same question: How much power do “experts” in health and science deserve? At stake is the future accessibility of the abortion pill mifepristone, and the ability of government officials to advise social media companies about misinformation.

Meanwhile, abortion opponents are preparing action plans in case Donald Trump retakes the White House. While it’s unlikely Congress will have enough votes to pass a national abortion ban, a president can take steps to make abortion far less available, even in states where it remains legal.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Abortion opponents are preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency. Among ways the former GOP president could influence policy without Congress is by installing an activist secretary of Health and Human Services, possibly allowing a political appointee to overrule decisions made by FDA employees.
• While President Joe Biden is embracing abortion rights, Donald Trump is highlighting two conflicting truths: that he appointed the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the constitutional right to an abortion and that embracing abortion restrictions could drive away voters.
• The federal government is making its initial offers on 10 expensive pharmaceuticals targeted for Medicare price negotiations. But the process is private, so it is unknown what those offers are.
• Two pharmaceuticals that have been in the headlines — the controversial Alzheimer’s disease drug Aduhelm and the insulin Levemir — will soon be pulled from the market. The decisions to discontinue them play into an ongoing debate in drug development: When is innovation worth the price?
• “This Week in Health Misinformation” features an article by KFF Health News’ Amy Maxmen about how what once were fringe views questioning science are now becoming more mainstream.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a husband and wife billed for preventive care that should have been fully covered. If you have an outrageous or confounding medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Amid Recall Crisis, Philips Agrees to Stop Selling Sleep Apnea Machines in the United States,” by Debbie Cenziper, ProPublica, and Michael D. Sallah, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Elmo Asked an Innocuous Question,” by Callie Holtermann.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Texas Tribune’s “Texas Attorney General Requests Transgender Youths’ Patient Records From Georgia Clinic,” by Madaleine Rubin.

Sandhya Raman: The Associated Press’ “Community Health Centers Serve 1 in 11 Americans. They’re a Safety Net Under Stress,” by Devi Shastri.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “The Anti-Abortion Plan Ready for Trump on Day One,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• The 19th’s “The Tools Trump Cold Use to Curb Abortion Access if He’s Elected,” by Shefali Luthra and Mel Leonor Barclay.
• The New York Times’ “How Trump Could Institute a Backdoor Federal Abortion Ban,” by Mary Ziegler.
• CQ Roll Call’s “GOP Pivots on Abortion Stance as 2024 Nears,” by Ariel Cohen and Sandhya Raman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Struggle Over Who Gets the Last Word

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Struggle Over Who Gets the Last WordEpisode Number: 332Published: Feb. 1, 2024

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 1, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient — actually, patients — got unexpected bills for care that should have been fully covered.

Before we get to this week’s news, it is February, so that means we want your health policy valentines. We will put a link to submit in our show notes. It’s on our web page at kffhealthnews.org. Show us, and your valentine, your affection for nerdy health policy topics. Winners will get read on the podcast and shared on our webpage and social media. The top poem will get its own illustration by our amazing in-house artist, Oona Tempest, so get those entries in.

OK, now the news. We will start this week in federal court where March is starting to look like “Health Policy Month.” At the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, judges will hear arguments in the case Braidwood v. Becerra, which challenges the very popular provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to cover a long list of preventive services at no out-of-pocket cost to patients. Fun fact: This is the provision in question in the latest “Bill of the Month,” which you will hear about in a few minutes. Another fun fact: The lower-court decision in this case came from Judge Reed O’Connor, whose name might sound familiar because he was the judge who tried to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act back in 2018. Somebody remind us why the plaintiffs here think the preventive services mandate is unlawful and should be stricken?

Raman: One of the issues that they have in this case is that certain types of this preventative care are in question — so, some of the things related to women’s health, vaccines, PrEP for preventing HIV, and just the moral issues that they have that those things do not necessarily need to be applied to under their plan. It’s some of those things in particular that come up.

Rovner: Yeah. I think in this case it seems to be mostly PrEP. It seems to be mostly about not wanting to encourage homosexual behavior, as the plaintiffs are saying, which is a rerun of what we had with the birth control cases, which went on, also for this provision of the ACA. No matter what happens in this case, Braidwood is sure to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which already has two health-related cases set for March oral arguments.

On March 18, the justices will hear Murthy v. Missouri, which challenges the government’s ability to coordinate with social media companies to downplay medical misinformation. The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri are arguing that the Biden administration essentially worked to censor conservative views. The Murthy in this case is Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, on whose behalf the Justice Department called the lower-court ruling seeking to bar communication between the White House and federal health agencies with social media companies, quote, “novel, unbounded, startling, radical, and ill-defined.” This could be a really important case for those trying to rein in medical misinformation, right? I mean, it’s obviously a really delicate thing. What serves as medical misinformation when the government gets to say, “Really, it should be at least de-algorithming,” if that’s a word, “this stuff because it’s not correct.”

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think one of the questions here is was the government collaborating and just sort of discussing and flagging these concerns to the companies, or did they exercise some sort of undue leverage here? Which is a big debate. Obviously, a private company has different ability to also regulate speech on its platform than the government does. So that’s another element to the case. I think sometimes people get confused about what your free speech rights are when you’re not directly dealing with the government in the U.S.

Rovner: Yes, there’s no guaranteed free speech in a private space like social media. I mean, they are not government-run. Although, I guess one of the arguments here is that they may be government-involved. I guess that’s what this case is supposed to try and create the guidelines for, but it’ll be … I’m looking forward to actually listening to these oral arguments.

Well, the following week, on March 26, the Supreme Court will hear the case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which is the one where conservative doctors challenged the original year 2000 approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Technically, the justices are no longer considering canceling the original approval. They’re considering rolling back the FDA’s loosening of restrictions on the drug in 2016. But still, that alone could be a big deal, right? Sandhya, you’ve been following this, have you?

Raman: Yeah. Yeah. The Supreme Court decided at the end of last year that they would be taking up the case. So this week they set the actual oral arguments that we can look forward to. That’s going to be the first big abortion case that they’re going to hear since Dobbs. We have another abortion case coming up in April related to emergency health care. I think that it is interesting that it’s not over the full approval of the drug, it’s the regulations, but if you …

Rovner: Well, that’s because the 5th Circuit rolled back the original decision.

Raman: Yes. But I think that if you look at how much the regulations have changed since the original approval, there’s been a lot of expansion in just how it can be used, who can prescribe it, where it can be used, that kind of thing. So even if they were to rule to rescind some of those regulations and keep the original approval in place, that could have a huge effect in terms of who can get it. I mean, since the initial approval, we’ve been allowed to distribute it by mail, we’ve been allowed to do by telehealth to prescribe it. Just the length into pregnancy that it can be used, there’s been a lot of changes there. So we’ll have that to watch. The briefs have all started coming in, at least in favor of keeping the regulations as they are. We’ve had a huge lawmaker brief from a lot of Democrats. We had one from a lot of the pharmaceutical companies, including some big ones like Pfizer and Biogen.

Rovner: Yeah. I noticed in the PhRMA brief — or the pharmaceutical companies’ brief; I don’t believe it was from PhRMA the organization yet. But they did say that they were worried that if the court even were to uphold the 5th Circuit decision, which doesn’t cancel the approval but would cancel all of the changes since 2016, that that would basically freeze in place the use of drugs as we discover new uses for the same drugs. I mean, if you can’t relabel and put them out in a different way for different things, that would be a big hit to the drug industry, which, Sarah, spends a lot of time repurposing existing drugs, right? That’s a big part of drug development.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Improving upon a drug once it gets approved, expanding the label to treat different conditions is a big thing. The underlying tension for the pharmaceutical industry here is that there is a concern that this is the courts weighing in on sort of questioning the scientific judgment of the FDA in a way that would just make our whole drug approval regulatory system not function well for the industry, regardless of whether you’re talking about an abortion drug or a cancer drug or an arthritis drug. That’s really why there’s so much engagement from folks who are not necessarily here to argue about abortion politics. It’s just this concern that there’s certain scientific expertise and deference that we feel like the FDA should have, and that there’s concern that courts don’t really have that ability to accurately second-guess their judgments there.

Rovner: This really harkens back to what we’ve been talking about for the last couple of weeks with this big Supreme Court case on Chevron deference, which is basically the question of whether judges get to decide how to interpret federal laws or whether courts get to decide. This obviously would be a big deal because judges are not generally people with the expertise that doctors and scientists at the FDA have, right? Isn’t that sort of a big piece of this case too?

Kenen: Yes. We know that this particular court is anti-abortion. If they had just sort of a birthday cake wish, they would make the abortion pill go away. The question is where are they going to come down on who gets to decide? Is this an FDA decision or is this a legal decision elsewhere in the system? That’s the mystery. We really don’t know. In some ways, too, with the prior case we were just talking about, about preventive care, the USP has a lot of … the U.S. Preventive …

Rovner: Services Task Force.

Kenen: Who decides? What’s their authority? Which is part of the underlying legal battle in that case. So, are they anti-abortion? Yeah. Six, we know, are. Are they anti-FDA? Are they going to find some legal rationale for pulling this out of the FDA, with leaving other drugs in the FDA? That’s sort of part of what we’ll be watching for. Not just us. I mean, that’s what it comes down to.

Rovner: I was going to say, even the social media case, I mean, all of these cases are basically about scientific expertise and who gets to have the last say on questions of science and medicine. I mean, literally, all of these cases are about the same thing when you come right down to it.

So while we are on the subject of abortion, former South Carolina governor and, still, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has been dodging questions about a federal abortion ban by pointing out that if neither party has 60 votes in the Senate, nothing can pass. Which is true as long as there’s still a filibuster. Well, it seems that the anti-abortion movement took that as a challenge. Two of our podcast colleagues, Shefali Luthra and Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, have eye-opening stories this week about all the things that President Donald Trump could do, if he’s elected again, without Congress. Some of those are things that he did in his first term that President Biden reversed, but some are new ones too. They’re already vetting people to carry out those policies. It looks like they want to be ready on day one. At least the anti-abortion forces want to be ready on day one, to do kind of a full-court press on anything that they consider to be abortion related.

Raman: Yeah, I think there have been, in the past, some of these policies that have gone back and forth between each administration. So something like Title X, the family planning program. Depending on if we have a Democrat or a Republican in office, they change what some of the regulations are there, but then …

Rovner: They basically kick Planned Parenthood in or out.

Raman: Yeah, things like that. Or like the Mexico City policy, which does something in a similar … but for overseas funding. And we’ve had also a ton of different new regulations since the Dobbs decision, in the Biden administration making it a little easier if you are, in certain cases, needing an abortion and are in the VA, in the Defense Department, things like that, that have been big issues for a lot of Republicans. So they would also have to — it’s more of a new territory to figure out how to roll back some of those compared to some of the things that they have a standard plan on.

But if you look at both of our podcast colleagues’ stories, one that stuck out to me was just kind of how they would have the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] try to crack down on abortion by mail, which comes back to the court case we were just discussing, abortion medication, abortion. And just how you could reinterpret some of the existing regulations that we do have regardless of what happens at the Supreme Court.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say one thing that really stuck out to me in one of The New York Times pieces about this was how even the Trump administration could basically have their HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary override FDA decisions, because we sort of forget that, actually, the way Congress has written a lot of the laws, actually, the HHS secretary has that ultimate authority around drug approvals. We just sort of take it for granted, I think, that for the most part they delegate that to FDA and the political appointees stay out of it. That’s another thing they raise is you could have sort of a more activist HHS secretary that could interfere with what does or doesn’t get approved by FDA. So there’s some pretty norm-ending ideas there for the government.

Rovner: I will say that I do remember Kathleen Sebelius came in and overrode an FDA … about contraception coverage decision. President [Barack] Obama made it clear that he asked Secretary Sebelius to override the FDA, but I think that was more to protect the FDA. Made it clear that this was a policy decision, not a medical decision. I know that they struggled with that a lot. For exactly the reason that you’re saying, that they didn’t want this to become normal, to have the secretary override the decision of the FDA.

Kenen: But that was a big controversy and someone at the FDA quit over it. I think it was the women’s health person. In that case, it was narrow. It was about, if I’m remembering correctly, Julie has a, sometimes, better memory, it was under-18 access to the morning-after pill, right? It was about 10 or 12 years ago.

Rovner: It was 2011 because it was the night my dog had her leg surgery and I had to come back to the office at 1 in the morning because we didn’t think that the secretary was going to override this decision.

Kenen: No, I said 10 to …

Rovner: I remember it really vividly.

Kenen: … 10 to 12 years ago. Yes, it was, then, 12 years ago. There hasn’t been a high-level repetition of that that I can think — of a HHS override. I mean, that’s one reason why the former FDA commissioners maybe … Julie, you and I were both at Aspen that year. It was maybe eight years ago or nine years ago where all the former FDA commissioners came together and called for the FDA to become an autonomous agency, sort of like the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], which was a proposal that then fell in a pond and was never heard from again. But that would prevent that kind of political interference. I mean, I actually spoke to a former FDA commissioner sort of recently and said, “Whatever happened to that?” And he said, “Wait.” So apparently they haven’t totally forgotten. We’re going to see reiterations of this fight over absolutely everything for the indefinite future: Who gets to decide?

Rovner: Yeah, I do think, like I was saying, that this is basically all about who gets to make medical and scientific decisions and whose, quote-unquote, “opinion” holds. Well, before we get off of this totally, both Alice’s and Shefali’s story, and an op-ed by University of California-Davis law professor Mary Ziegler, who’s also been on this podcast, talk about the revival of the Comstock Act. We have talked about this before and we surely will again, but somebody remind us what this 1873 law does and how it could be applied to abortion.

Karlin-Smith: In simple terms, it’s to prevent sending what are considered, quote-unquote, “obscene materials” through the mail. What that can refer to has been interpreted in different ways over the years. I mean, some of the … when it’s from the 1800s, it’s before we had medication abortion. It’s before we had the internet and telemedicine and all of these things. So there’s a lot of room that people have seen for just how it can be reinterpreted now with a lot of different things in place compared to over a 100-and-some years ago, and just how that can work in certain favors.

Rovner: I think I’ve said this before, now that we’re talking about the Comstock Act again, I realize that Anthony Comstock, who it is named after, was not a member of Congress. He was just an anti-smut crusader, basically. I believe the phrase, “You can’t send anything lewd or obscene through the mail.” This would be how they could sort of use it to say that anything abortion or possibly even contraception could be lewd or obscene. With all of this, that the Republicans are getting ready, or at least the anti-abortion groups are getting ready to do, Sandhya, you have a story out this week pointing out that abortion is not something Republicans are emphasizing on the campaign trail. Why not? There seems to be an awful lot of enthusiasm on that side.

Raman: It is pretty interesting. I mean, even if at this point it’s looking like we’re going to have the Round Two of the Trump-Biden matchup, if you look at how Trump, and then even Nikki Haley, have been messaging, all their ads, all that, they have not been as strong on anti-abortion issues as they have in the past. They’re both people that — both of them I’ve covered addressing annual Susan B. Anthony List events. I’ve covered March for Life where Trump has addressed them. They’ve both been very strong on this issue. And then, as you look at it now, neither of them have been really strong on committing to signing a national ban. Haley has really sidestepped the issue in a lot of the interviews that she’s done, just because, like you said, the Senate filibuster. I think even Trump has … they’ve been messaging on him being the most pro-life president that they’ve had. He’s just kind of sidestepped it as well, just kind of emphasizing other things. If you look at the advertising they’ve been doing, it’s not focused on this. It’s such a stark contrast to what the Biden campaign has done, which has really gone all in on abortion rights. They even had an all-reproductive-rights-themed rally a couple weeks ago.

Kenen: When Trump did the town hall on Fox, two, three weeks ago, whenever that was, he had it both ways, which meant that there’s a film clip to use whoever you’re advertising to. Within a minute and a half or two minutes or whatever it was, Trump took credit for knocking down Roe. He took credit for … “I accomplished that.” In other words, he appointed the justices or some of the justices that voted for that. So he took credit for finally being the one to get rid of abortion after 50 … get rid of Roe after 50 years. He was very …

Rovner: Which is true.

Kenen: It’s true. Well, both things he said were true because he took credit for that. So there’s your film clip one for that ad, or that message, or that social media, or whatever, direct mail. Whatever you want to use it for. It’s “I am the one.” And it’s true. And then, in the next breath, he said, “But we have to win elections.” He’s also said he’s for a … is it rape and incest or just rape? I think it was both. He’s for that exception. And then he talked about, “Face reality, we have to win.” Which is also a true statement if you’re running for president. You have to win or you don’t get to do these things that you’ve promised. So, I mean, he’s not the first politician or the last to try to have it both ways. It was interesting that he had it both ways, both accurately, in a two-minute conversation.

Rovner: Not that uncommon for him, though …

Kenen: No, but …

Rovner: To take both sides of an issue at the same time.

Kenen: He was so unabashed about it, it was sort of interesting that, “I did this, but maybe I won too much. Maybe it wasn’t …” I mean, at the polls, abortion has won.

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: Anytime there’s been a single-issue vote on abortion, the pro-choice people have won every ballot initiative since Dobbs.

Rovner: Yeah. And yet the other ironic thing, I mean, Sandhya, you already mentioned this, that the Biden administration is going all in on abortion because they know that Democratic women and independent women in most polls are supportive of abortion rights and not supportive of the Dobbs decision. On the other hand, Biden himself is an unlikely messenger for this. He’s a Catholic man of a certain age. He’s always been uncomfortable with this issue. He was pro-life early in his career. There was a joke that he didn’t even say “abortion,” I think, until a year into his presidency. There was an actual website that said, “Has Joe Biden said the word abortion yet?” So is he going to be able to bring along all of these people because they’re just going to, “If you support abortion rights, you’ll just vote for anybody not named Donald Trump”?

Raman: I mean, I think that we’ve already seen some of these different abortion-oriented groups really mobilize or kind of illustrate, commit how much money they’re going to spend, all the on-the-ground stuff they’re going to do to get him reelected. They have called out some of the things that he’s done, some of the regulations we’ve already talked about, that kind of thing. But I do get the sense that some of them are frustrated that we haven’t done enough. But I mean you could say the same for the other side. There’s always more that people want. Given the limitations of government when you don’t have the trifecta, and even when you do have the trifecta, if you don’t have enough of a majority to get some of your golden-ticket items done. So I think that it will be interesting to watch. I mean, we even, going forward, for the State of the Union coming up, they’ve already announced that they’re going to have … one of the guests is Kate Cox, the Texas woman who had to travel when she wasn’t able to get the court order to get the emergency abortion.

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, it’s a turnout issue. We know that voters are not enthusiastic about either candidate. We know that, right? I mean, will that change as the election gets closer? Who knows? But right now, many polls are finding that America’s not crazy about this particular rematch. So what are the issues that motivate people who are lukewarm to actually vote? This is going to be on both sides. This is going to be an issue, but the intensity in many ways is going to be on the Democratic side because they’re, just like it used to be, the one fighting for change. The one on the out is the one more likely to have that voter intensity. For 50 years, it was the Republicans. For the last 18 months, it’s been the Democrats. Vice President [Kamala] Harris has been talking about this. A lot of the other surrogates are talking about this. So this is a “Will this make you get out of whatever else you were going to do that Tuesday, or early vote, and actually vote?” It’s going to be one of the key issues in turnout.

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s a great point, that that is another reason why there’s so much Republican messaging on some of these other issues, on immigration, on crime and things like that. Because when it’s not a single-issue thing like the ballot — they’re still winning tons of races for governor and things like that. Maybe focusing on those issues might be good for them to boost some of the turnout.

Rovner: Well, another big issue that voters care about is drug prices. We actually have a lot of drug news this week. The federal government, just this morning, sent out its first set of proposed prices for the 10 drugs they have selected for Medicare price negotiation. Of course, they’re not telling us those prices because this is a private negotiation. But Sarah, did anything jump out at you from what they’ve said about kicking off this process?

Karlin-Smith: I think right now what the Biden administration is trying to do is just sort of publicize that this process is happening. Because again, this is a big political issue, an election thing that they’re hoping will motivate voters. But at the same time, it’s a little bit of a dud in some ways because the government can’t say what they’re offering and the companies don’t necessarily seem inclined to put out any information on this yet. So it’s going to be a pretty private process, potentially all the way up until this fall, in September, when we’ll get some public information. But I think the Biden administration just wants to keep ramming it into voters’ heads that, “Hey, we’re doing work to try and lower drug prices for people as much as we can.”

Rovner: Of course, the drug industry still hopes that some court will overrule and stop this whole thing, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. There was actually oral arguments yesterday in one of the challenges from AstraZeneca to … that they’re hoping courts will intervene. I think some of the initial reporting from that was that the judge was fairly skeptical of some of AstraZeneca’s arguments, such as that there’s sort of a due process or taking of property that the government is not allowed to do here. The judge was basically saying, “Well, nobody is forcing you to participate in the Medicare program and sell your drugs there.” So some initial, at least, positive signs for the government in those oral arguments.

Rovner: Yeah. Although, as we know, they have a long way to go. In the individual-drug news category, remember when we were talking all about the controversial Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm, pretty much every week? Well, it is back and it’s sort of gone, or going, at least. Drug company Biogen is giving up ownership and prematurely ending a trial that was supposed to confirm the drug’s effectiveness in treating early Alzheimer’s. Sarah, you followed this from the very beginning. What do you take away from this whole saga? I mean, at one point, Aduhelm was going to be the answer, and then it was going to break Medicare because it costs so much. And then it was going to make people sick because it had side effects. And now it’s just going away.

Karlin-Smith: There’s so many layers to this story, but the quick version of it is, basically, FDA sort of controversially approved this drug over a lot of skepticism of whether it was actually going to be beneficial to patients. They use sort of a controversial measure that the drug reduced these amyloid plaques in the brain, but there were a lot of questions, including by outside scientists and so forth, as to whether this would actually improve the lives of patients with Alzheimer’s in terms of helping them function and memory. There’s a lot of side effects to the drug. Of course, the third layer of this is it was priced quite costly. What ended up happening was Medicare said, “We will only cover this drug at this point in time if it’s used in a clinical trial.” Part of what happened, I think in large part because of that, is there was no uptake of this product, no sales. That’s really why Biogen has pulled the plug here. The other element of this is that Biogen also has another Alzheimer’s drug that was approved fairly shortly thereafter that actually has better data to show there’s some benefit in actually improving people’s cognition. So again, they’re not necessarily invested in pushing forward a drug where they face all these payment challenges and have less solid data. The question now becomes, what does FDA do here? Do they officially go through the process and make sure … force Biogen to pull it off the market? What do they do about this clinical trial that they were supposed to be conducting to confirm the benefit? And what does science lose if that just gets stopped? I’m not sure if anyone will feel like there’s a need to complete that at this point. But it does raise interesting questions to me because I think about 1,500 or something patients were actually already enrolled in participating in that study.

Rovner: But I do think it’s important to emphasize that since Aduhelm was sort of all the rage, the big debate, we actually are finally seeing some drugs that do appear to have more benefit than cost for early Alzheimer’s. I mean, not a cure, but at least a slowing of the deterioration, right?

Karlin-Smith: I guess I think people are sort of cautiously optimistic about these drugs. They’re excited. Nobody thinks these are the holy grail yet of Alzheimer’s treatments. I think even some of the CEOs of the companies working on them have acknowledged that, but they do seem to offer some benefit. Again, there’s still a lot of these brain-swelling safety events that can be fairly devastating. So I think people are going to be watching really closely. Because usually what we know when a drug is initially approved is a fraction of what we end up knowing over time. So I think it’s still early days, but there is some hope that we finally sort of maybe cracked the code on some of the mechanisms of action of how to treat Alzheimer’s.

Kenen: Like with other drugs in cancer, elsewhere, sometimes you just need the first-draft drug. Hopefully, this isn’t the best we’re going to get. These new drugs that are showing some promise and some slowing down is sort of a proof of concept. Yes, you can make a drug that works. In other fields, too, you ended up … the first drug wasn’t a great drug, but it was a leap ahead in terms of understanding the science. So the fact that we have anything that does anything, scientists do consider that they don’t really understand Alzheimer’s, but it matters that there’s some effect. It’s not next week or next year, but there’s a goal that you can see. I think if you’re an Alzheimer’s researcher who’s spent their life not seeing a lot of tangible results, this is like a glimmer. Maybe more than a glimmer. I mean, this is like, “OK, we’re learning how to do this.”

Karlin-Smith: That was actually one of Biogen’s arguments, I think, for why Aduhelm should have been approved in the first place. Maybe even some folks at the FDA basically saying, “Look, we know this maybe isn’t the home run, but if you don’t approve these products, people are just going to leave this space and not invest in it and not keep trying to bring forth drugs.” I mean, there are people that vehemently disagree with that argument, that that’s the best way to encourage the right innovation for this country, but that wasn’t an argument you saw from industry and even some at the FDA, I think.

Kenen: But I wasn’t talking about Aduhelm specifically. I mean, the other ones that are in the pipeline that are coming out. I mean, it’s new and we don’t really know much about them yet. But the past Alzheimer’s drugs were basically useless or really limited use. These might be what we will later look back on as the first draft as opposed to another failure.

Rovner: I want to move on to another drug that’s being discontinued. European mega drugmaker Novo Nordisk has announced its ending production of a long-acting insulin, Levemir — I think that’s how you pronounce it — that, coincidentally, is one of the insulins that it slashed prices on last year under pressure from lawmakers. The announcement came the same week the company announced it would double the availability in the U.S. of its blockbuster weight loss drug, Wegovy, and the same week that the company hit $500 billion in market value. While there are substitutes for the insulin, for Levemir, many of its patients say this particular product is the best one for them, and there isn’t a one-to-one substitute. I guess this is a reminder that for drug companies, the prime goal is turning profits for their shareholders. I mean, they’re making a lot more money off of these weight loss drugs than they are off their diabetes drugs. We know that the weight loss drugs were in shortage because they couldn’t make enough of them. So you don’t have to be really good at math to kind of put two and two together here, right?

Raman: Right. I’m not sure they’re necessarily even hiding that fact, to some degree. They basically lowered the prices of a lot of these insulin products because of changes in the Medicaid rebate program, where because these products had their prices raised so much over the years, they were going to be subject to new inflation penalties, where they’d essentially owe Medicaid money if they didn’t lower the price. So now you have these older insulin products with lower prices that don’t make them as much money. And Novo Nordisk, in the insulin space, has innovated over the years and made some improvements. So they want to focus on selling their insulin products that they can sell at a higher price point. But again, you get patients who say, “Look, this older drug, actually, I personally, think works better.” And there’s a benefit to patients that it’s cheaper. This is, I think, an old story in the pharmaceutical space that sometimes is looked upon by lawmakers, which is, they innovate and they push patients onto newer products, but is the innovation really worth the price or should people have some way to choose the older product for the lower price if they think it works fine for them?

Rovner: Speaking of drug company profits, the CEOs of Merck and Johnson & Johnson have voluntarily agreed to testify before the Senate Health Committee — meaning that Chairman Bernie Sanders won’t have to subpoena them after all. The hearing is scheduled for Feb. 8. But it’s not about any specific legislation, this is just a chance for Sanders to lecture the CEOs about their high prices, Sandhya?

Raman: Essentially, yes. I think, also, it’s been such a big issue for him. Even if you look back when we had the various nominees, that they wanted to … that would go through his committee where he said that he really wanted more action on this. So I think it’ll be interesting what he brings up, and if there’s a clear pathway of something to move forward since this has been such a big issue for him for a while.

Rovner: Well, he successfully made me want to watch this hearing. We’ll see how it goes. All right. Well, let us turn to “This Week in Health Misinformation.” In addition to that case that the Supreme Court will hear, that we talked about at the top, we have a story from my new KFF Health News colleague, Amy Maxmen, about how what used to be fringe anti-science views are now mainstream among Republicans in general. Vaccine hesitancy has gone up. And that’s hesitancy even to long-proven childhood vaccines, not just the covid vaccine. While trust in science in general has dropped, according to numerous polls. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has made public health conspiracies part of his platform. And as a presidential candidate, he said he would’ve considered nominating noted conspiracy theoretician and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. I’ve certainly seen more pushback in my reporting of things that people used to agree on. I assume you guys have too. I mean, it harkens right back to our original theme of who gets trusted when they talk about science and medicine.

Karlin-Smith: I think one of the interesting things that Amy’s story really points out very well, that people have been talking about a lot since the beginning of the covid era, is that this anti-science or anti-vaccine attitude has really become embedded in people’s personal identity and personal politics in a new way. Once it becomes part of your political identity, the experts are saying, it becomes much harder to change people’s views. That’s seen as one of the key problems right now, because, again, providing facts or just rebutting the information doesn’t seem to work when you’re basically sort of attacking somebody’s core identities and beliefs.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s an interesting subject, how we’re sort of freezing a lot of these things in place.

Kenen: Well, it’s also tied up with liberty and freedom in a way that has been part of the anti-vax movement for a long time, but it was a much smaller thread. Right now, this individual liberty or medical freedom, “You don’t have the right to mandate anything,” that “It’s my body.” Now, that’s fine if it’s really only your body, but when you’re talking about infectious diseases, it’s everybody’s bodies. Anti-vaxxing is across the … there are people on both the left and right who are against vaccination. That has changed in the intensity and the politicization on the right, during covid and since covid, and this medical freedom movement, which is sort of a subsection of libertarianism. We tend to talk about anti-vaxxers and anti-vaccination because that’s the most salient thing in the last few years, but there is a broader distrust of expertise, period. Scientific expertise, medical expertise, everything. I mean, some of you know I’m writing a book. We turned in the first draft this very morning. Misinformation is part of the book, and disinformation. This decline, when I was researching … it wasn’t that America was a really trusting society. I was surprised. Going back in history, we’ve always [had] pretty high distrust rates of many major institutions, but it’s much higher in health, medicine, science, public health right now.

Rovner: It’s not just the U.S. We’re seeing this around the world, basically, since the pandemic.

Kenen: It’s tied into the pandemic. It’s tied into the research of populism, a right-wing form of populism. It’s tied into a whole anxiety. The last few years have been really hard on people. Science didn’t have the answers and quick fixes that people wanted, because science is incremental, and people wanted instantaneous fixes. They didn’t understand the incremental changing nature of science, and scientists didn’t always explain it well enough. So it’s here to stay for the near future. It’s pretty insidious because it’s way beyond vaccines.

Rovner: I’m sure we will talk about it more. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Samantha Liss, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Thanks for joining us, Sam.

Samantha Liss: Hi.

Rovner: So, this month’s patients, a husband and wife, got some mysterious bills for preventive care that they thought should have been free. Tell us who they are and what they got.

Liss: Yeah. So this month we bring you Chantal Panozzo and her husband. They live outside Chicago. And they underwent their first colonoscopies last year, after turning 45.

Rovner: Then, as we say, the bill came. Now, colonoscopies are very much on the list of preventive services that are supposed to be available at no out-of-pocket cost to patients. So there really shouldn’t even have been a bill. How much was the bill and what was it for?

Liss: Yeah. So their insurance company paid for the screening, but there was a separate $600 charge for something called “surgical trays.” Supplies you’d expect to be covered.

Rovner: Yeah. It’s like saying, “We’re going to charge you rent for lying on our table.”

Liss: Exactly.

Rovner: Chantal Panozzo knew that there shouldn’t be a charge. After getting no good explanation from her insurer or the gastroenterology practice, she went to complain. She went pretty much everywhere she could, right?

Liss: Yeah. Chantal is a savvy consumer, and she was furious. She lodged an appeal with her insurer, she filed a formal complaint with state regulators in Illinois, and she wrote to her elected officials.

Rovner: So what eventually happened?

Liss: She won, but she’ll tell you she did not feel victorious. Her insurer waived the bills for her and her husband, and they didn’t owe anything, but it was a months-long slog. I think seven months in total.

Rovner: Just to be clear, it was actually the insurer that she appealed to, and she won that appeal.

Liss: Yeah. I think part of what helped push that appeal along was her complaint to the Illinois Department of Insurance.

Rovner: So, doing all of those things apparently helped. It turns out that the couple uncovered quite the loophole in the preventive services mandate. What is that and how can others avoid falling into the same trap?

Liss: Yeah. Under the law, the insurer bears the legal burden to pay for preventative care. There’s no requirement on providers to bill a certain way. So I think as we tell all our folks who read and listen to our “Bill of the Month” series, never pay the first bill. Wait until you get your explanation of benefits, and if something doesn’t feel right, ask questions.

Rovner: So basically, people can go in and get care that they expect and should be free and get random charges, and they can complain about those, right?

Liss: Exactly. And I think Chantal’s example shows sometimes you have to fight so hard and for so long to get something waived that you shouldn’t have been charged for to begin with. It’s maddening and it ticks people off.

Rovner: And if all else fails, you can send your bill to us.

Liss: Yes, please do.

Rovner: Sam Liss, thank you very much.

Liss: Thanks.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, you have my favorite this week, why don’t you go first?

Kenen: I told Julie that Elmo didn’t want her to get sad if I was going to do this one, and she didn’t. I’m sure almost everybody saw the Elmo phenomenon this week. The particular story that I’m referring to is by Callie Holtermann in The New York Times, “Elmo Asked an Innocuous Question.” And then there’s this wonderful sub-headline, “Elmo was not expecting it to open a yawning chasm of despair.” Elmo tweeted or X’ed, whatever you call it … I mean, it wasn’t really Elmo, it was his human. Elmo is just checking in, “How is everybody doing?” There were tens of thousands of views. Last time I looked, there were more than 16,000 responses. I did not read all 16,000, but people really are not happy. And they told Elmo that. It just became this sort of mass confessional to Elmo of all the things that people were feeling despair about. And then Elmo ended up saying something like, “Wow, Elmo is glad he asked.” So I don’t know if Elmo has now become our national shrink, but to a certain extent this week, he was.

Rovner: Absolutely. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a piece from The Texas Tribune about not quite an amazing topic, maybe. The “Texas Attorney General Requests Transgender Youths’ Patient Records From Georgia Clinic,” by Madaleine Rubin. It basically looks at a trend where Texas seems to be trying to not only control what is happening to the care of transgender children within their state, but trying to maybe intimidate or prevent care from happening out of state by going after telehealth providers, but maybe even trying to request records related to people that have traveled outside of the state to get care because they can’t get it in the state. It reminds me a bit of some of what some of these states are also trying to do in the abortion space as well, but raises interesting questions about whether the state really has the authority to interfere here and so forth.

Rovner: Yeah, Texas is obviously fighting this border issue, too, with the federal government. So Texas is trying to basically see how far it can press its authority, in general. Sandhya?

Raman: My pick this week is called “Community Health Centers Serve 1 in 11 Americans. They’re a Safety Net Under Stress.” It’s from Devi Shastri at The AP. I just thought it was a great look at some of the challenges, some new, some evergreen for the 1,400 federal community health centers that provide medical care, social services, and so much for so many folks in the country. It just looks at some of the issues. In Congress, there’s always the periodic federal funding drama of just, “When will community health centers get funded?” And, “They can’t long-term plan on that.” That and just how the staffing concerns, whether it’s money or quality of life, or just how they can address new health equities and things like that.

Rovner: It was a really good story. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s a coda to a series of stories that they’ve been working on, and we’ve been talking about over the past several years, after reporters at our fellow nonprofit newsroom helped uncover serious defects in the CPAP breathing machines manufactured by Philips Respironics, and the company’s failure to report complaints about the foam in those machines crumbling and getting into patient’s lungs. The company finally issued a recall. Then, apparently, the replacement foam also started to deteriorate, which also became a subject of the series. Now the GAO is investigating the FDA’s oversight of medical devices, and a federal criminal probe is being sought for Philips. And now, at least, the company will stop selling the machines in the United States. So journalism works, particularly when reporters keep at it. And boy, did they keep at it on this story.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Joanne, where are you hanging out these days?

Kenen: I’m mostly on Threads @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I am @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Sandhya?

Raman: I’m still with X and on Bluesky, @Sandhya@Writes.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

As this election year begins in earnest, making it harder for Congress to pass bills, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still struggling to fund the government for the fiscal year that began last October. And many health priorities hang in the balance.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is again wading into the abortion debate, accepting a case out of Idaho that pits a federal law requiring emergency care, including for pregnant women, against the state’s strict abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In Washington, lawmakers have reportedly reached a deal that could pave the way for passing necessary government spending bills. But it is unlikely they will pass a full package before the current extensions end, leaving many federal health programs hanging. And ahead of next week’s Iowa caucuses, it bears asking what Republicans would do in health if the party reclaims the White House.
• The Supreme Court is again stepping into the fray over abortion rights, choosing to review the conflict between Idaho’s abortion ban and a federal law requiring emergency medical care. It is notable that justices did not have to take this case and, by swooping in now, are setting up another major abortion ruling before the 2024 election.
• The Biden administration announced it will scale back so-called conscience protections for health providers that the Trump administration sought to beef up. The back-and-forth over the policy — which was created during the George W. Bush administration — reinforces the importance of pressing presidential candidates about what they would do administratively on abortion policy, rather than asking what bills they might sign into law.
• News out of Florida this week: Newly introduced legislation there would, among other things, classify abortion as a felony and penalize those outside the state involved in the sale or distribution of abortion pills if they are “likely to be used in Florida” — a concerning example of a state effort to regulate access to abortion nationwide.
• And the FDA approved Florida’s request to import drugs from Canada, a change for which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking credit — though both President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump could also claim some of that credit. But there are a lot of hurdles left before the state receives its first shipments, and due to the way the policy will be implemented, it may not save the state much money anyway.

“This Week in Health Misinformation” highlights Olympic gold medalist and medical crowdfunding beneficiary Mary Lou Retton, who said this week she could not afford health insurance before her headline-grabbing bout of pneumonia because her preexisting conditions made having insurance too expensive. But a decade into the existence of the Affordable Care Act, the fact is that patients can no longer be penalized on the insurance market for preexisting conditions — and, as the record 20 million Americans who enrolled in ACA coverage this year may attest, there are plenty of federal subsidies available to help afford insurance, too.

Also this week, Rovner interviews American Medical Association President Jesse Ehrenfeld, whose focus is helping the nation’s physicians navigate a rapidly changing health care system.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says,” by Sandee LaMotte. Also, ScienceAlert’s “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too,” by Carly Cassella. Also, The Washington Post’s “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products,” by Michael J. Coren.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by Phil Galewitz.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University,” by Rachel Cohrs.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: All About the (Government) Funding

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 329Episode Number: All About the (Government) FundingPublished: Jan. 11, 2024

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Jesse Ehrenfeld, this year’s president of the American Medical Association. It’s a bumpy time to be a doctor, and the AMA is more relevant than it’s been for quite a few years. But first, this week’s news. So we heard over the weekend that House and Senate negotiators reached a deal on top-line spending ceilings for defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

Actually, they were kind of the top lines, I believe, that they agreed to last summer, and then the House Republicans tried to change. That is all well and good, and it is definitely a prerequisite for passing full-year appropriations bills, but that’s not going to happen between now and Jan. 19, when the first of two temporary spending bills expires. So what do we expect to happen?

Ollstein: I was up on the Hill yesterday, and it’s a very “what they’re saying vs. what they’re doing” situation. They’re talking a lot about, “We got this top line. We’re moving forward. People are somewhat warming to the idea of another short-term CR [continuing resolution] to give them a little breathing room to get this done.” But then Republicans who were pissed about the entire process voted down an unrelated rule on an unrelated bill just to say, “We’re mad.” So that’s obviously not a good sign for getting big things done quickly in the next few weeks.

An issue I’m tracking is also conservatives who are disgruntled about the level of spending being higher than they wanted, saying, “Well, if we’re going to agree to this, we might as well get some policy wins out of it.” And they’re digging in harder on some of these anti-abortion provisions, other culture war things. I think the health care ones are being somewhat overshadowed right now by the immigration border stuff, but the health care things are still in the mix, for sure.

Rovner: Yeah. The CR that expires first also includes continuing authorizations for a bunch of health programs like community health centers and a delay of a bunch of scheduled Medicare payment cuts. Tami, you’re following WIC [Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program], I know, and food stamps. Do we have any idea what the fate is going to be of these things that will also expire when that first CR expires? Do we expect they’ll continue until Congress decides what to do?

Luhby: Well, actually things are looking a little better for WIC participants in terms of a shutdown, not necessarily in terms of full-year funding. But if the government had shut down in October, the USDA warned that it actually only had a few days left of money to provide for WIC. But if the government does shut down next week, then the USDA has told me that SNAP participants, food stamp participants, and WIC participants can expect to continue to get their benefits for food stamps January and February and for WIC January, February, March.

But separate from that, one of the issues that WIC participants have — and WIC, by the way, is the program that provides funding for pregnant women, new moms, infants, and young children to buy groceries. The WIC program is underfunded because there’s actually a big growth in enrollment. And so, even though the Senate provided some more money in their initial bill, they actually need more than a billion dollars more to continue the program at the current participation levels.

And a lot of folks are warning that if Congress doesn’t provide more money, there could actually be waiting lists for the first time in decades. So it’s a big issue that’s continuing because, as we know, the Republicans are not looking to add more money to nutrition assistance.

Rovner: Jumping ahead, it’s a little bit to the abortion debate. This is the argument that if you’re basically going to force women to have babies, you’re going to need to help support them if the women otherwise would’ve had an abortion because they couldn’t afford it. I think where we are with WIC, I think, is sort of the leading edge of this.

Luhby: And WIC is actually very important to that because it also provides breastfeeding assistance and guidance as well as other supports for new moms.

Rovner: So there were things, though, that didn’t even make it into the CR. One of them is the 3.4% cut in Medicare doctor pay. That took effect Jan. 1. Doctors I know would like to get that rolled back. There’s other things that are hoping to catch a ride on whatever the next vehicle is, right?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, one thing I had been watching is PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform. There seemed like there was some bipartisan and bicameral momentum to try and tack that on to the next big moving package. And one positive thing for that is that it does offer some amount of savings that then could be applied to other areas like spending, including potentially helping maybe with some of the Medicare cuts. So that’s something in the mix to look for.

Rovner: Yeah. Something that actually is proceeding on a separate track, right? We don’t expect that to be folded into the appropriations — unless we do. My impression was that was proceeding on its own, at least for the moment.

Karlin-Smith: I think it was proceeding on its own, but there’s been talk of could they fold it into any deal that struck to fund the government, because I think the likelihood that it really does fully clear both the House and Senate on their own is small.

Rovner: Yes, it is an election year. It is harder for Congress to get anything done. Speaking of which, on the campaign trail, the Iowa caucus is next week. Boy, that sort of snuck up on us. Former President [Donald] Trump still seems very likely to win, and he’s once again vowing to undo the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, hit an all-time enrollment record of 20 million this week. And open enrollment isn’t even quite over. Tami, do we know what Trump would do instead? That seems to be the part. He doesn’t ever say.

Luhby: No. It’s pretty much the same plan that he probably has from 2016 and 2017, which we never really fully learned about. So, no, it’s just going to be replaced with a “better plan” because, in his view, Obamacare is failing, and as we know, [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis also jumped on the same bandwagon, saying that he would actually also come up with a better plan, but he needs a few months to think about it.

Rovner: Because it’s always been right about to happen, of course.

Luhby: Well, as you may have heard, health care is complicated.

Rovner: And we’ll see something in two weeks.

Luhby: Right. Along with his block grant proposal for Medicaid that he mentioned at last night’s CNN debate.

Rovner: Yes. I was sort of taken by the comments of how they would fix health care in that debate, because Nikki Haley says, “We can fix it with tort reform and transparency.”

Luhby: Transparency. Yes.

Rovner: Right. Which are nice things, and as we say, almost every week, Congress is working on those things, but they are not going to solve what ails the health care system. All right, let us turn to abortion. Remember last week when I said we were still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the emergency petition from Idaho regarding the conflict between its state abortion ban and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act, EMTALA?

Well, on Friday, the court not only took the case, it overturned the stay of Idaho’s ban. So, at least for now, doctors cannot even provide abortions in medical emergencies unless the woman is at immediate risk of death. Alice, I assume that gives us a hint of where the court might be going with this case, and I imagine also that similar case out of Texas.

Ollstein: Yeah. So again, with the Supreme Court, you kind of have to read the tea leaves and make educated guesses. They’re obviously very secretive. But people who are following this case closely that I’ve spoken to, they think that both the stay of the lower-court ruling and the fact that they took this case at all is the sign that they’re really gunning for ruling on the side of the state abortion restrictions. Because this is really about the state-federal clash. When state abortion bans run into federal protections for patients in emergency circumstances, and which will prevail in that circumstance. So they didn’t have to take this case. The thinking was there is eventually going to be a circuit split on this issue between the 9th Circuit and the 5th Circuit. But the 9th Circuit hasn’t had a chance to rule yet. And so they could have waited, let this play out, allowed the 9th Circuit to hear the case and issue a decision, that would’ve probably punted this case until after the election. So it’s really interesting that they instead wanted to swoop in, allow Idaho to leapfrog the 9th Circuit, and also insert themselves into this really politically volatile case, and now they’re poised to issue a ruling right before the 2024 election that could have major implications for the whole country.

Rovner: They’re going to hear the mifepristone case before this summer too, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. And so even people who had sort of assumed on the mifepristone case like, “Oh, the Supreme Court’s going to kind of punt. They’re going to dismiss on standing.” Now, because of how aggressive they’re being in this other case, I have experts telling me, “Well, now I’m not so sure about the mifepristone case. Maybe they don’t care about optics as much as they used to.”

Rovner: Well, also, I think this is this Supreme Court’s theme, of “let states do whatever they want.” Even though federal law is supposed to trump state law, they seem to be reversing that in a rather aggressive fashion.

Ollstein: Yes. A big theme is definitely skepticism of federal rulemaking power. This falls under that same category as well.

Rovner: Well, speaking of federal rulemaking power, those who follow abortion policy in D.C. know that every time an administration changes parties, the so-called Mexico City policy that bans funding to international groups that support abortion rights gets either canceled or restored, depending on which party is in power. Well, now we have another policy that seems to be flip-flopping every time an administration changes. It was a rule first issued at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The so-called conscience rule made it easier for medical professionals and others in health care to decline to provide care that violates their religious or moral beliefs. So not just abortion but transgender care, in some cases, just treating people with AIDS. The Obama administration scaled back the Bush rule, and then the Trump administration broadened it. Then it got blocked by the courts, and now the Biden administration has formally rolled back the Trump changes that never really took effect. Alice, where are we with this?

Ollstein: Like you said, this is a back-and-forth, and I think this is why a lot of the questions being asked of candidates on the campaign trail right now, related to abortion, are the wrong questions. They keep getting asked about what kind of bills they would sign. That’s not the question. The question is what would they do administratively, which they could do so much. They could undo this. They could reverse all kinds of things. I follow the Title X stuff. I follow the Mexico City policy on restrictions on international spending on reproductive health. There’s just so much, obviously — FDA regulation of abortion pills — but these are the things we should be focused [on], not a bill that Congress has shown itself unable to pass even with one-party control of Congress.

Rovner: Nikki Haley keeps correctly saying there aren’t 60 votes for anything in the Senate related to abortion.

Ollstein: Right. But then, she also is saying that to mean a future Republican president couldn’t really do much, and that part is not true. They could do a lot.

Rovner: Exactly. Well, moving on, it’s January, and state legislatures are coming back into session. And we’re seeing some pretty eye-popping bills introduced in Florida, where abortion rights supporters just secured enough signatures to get a referendum protecting abortion rights on the 2024 ballot. Republican state Rep. David Borrero introduced a bill that would not only ban abortion, it would classify it as a third-degree felony with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. It also seeks to reach anyone outside the state who makes, sells, or mails abortion pills if they are, quote, “likely to be used in Florida.” The bill also defines personhood as beginning at the moment of fertilization, which would, among other things, make most birth control illegal and give fetuses constitutional rights. Alice, this bill is obviously not likely to pass, but legislators are playing the long game here by trying to make these things look sort of not out of the ordinary, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, the pill one, I think, is more the one to watch there. I’m curious if other states try to do that as well. Obviously, that runs into legal concerns about regulating interstate commerce, et cetera. But I think that we’ve seen these sort of nation attempts to restrict the movement of both people and medications across state lines, since that is a huge way that people are managing to terminate pregnancies despite bans right now. And so I think there’s only going to be more and more activity in that area to try to close off those remaining outlets for people. But yes, on the personhood front, that’s something that states have been attempting to do for a long time now, obviously more recently. And I think there’s sort of a strategy of, “Let’s just put it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in bills. Let’s throw it in amicus briefs.” And the hope is to eventually force this issue in court and to get a court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment covers fetuses, basically. Will that happen and when remains to be seen, but there’s definitely an effort to sort of seed it in the landscape.

Rovner: Sarah, this obviously — not so much the personhood part, although maybe that too — but trying to ban the movement of medication is something that clearly impacts the FDA. They seem to have been pretty quiet about this, but there’s an awful lot that seems to be sort of threatening the basic core procedures of what the FDA does. Are you hearing anybody whispering about this? Is there concern?

Karlin-Smith: I think the mifepristone case at the Supreme Court is a concern for people who watch FDA’s power and regulation, not just because of abortion but because it is seen as depending on how the court decides that case is something that really could touch on all of its regulatory authority as well. Certainly, this provision that Florida is trying to put in is really something where they seem like they’re effectively trying to regulate the abortion pill throughout the entire country and regulate manufacturers. So that would be concerning, again, if that somehow came to pass and was not struck down by courts, as Alice mentioned, for interstate commerce regulation, which is not some power that is usually given to the states, but so, in general, the abortion pill controversy makes anybody who’s impacted by the FDA regulation nervous.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has entered the chat. This week, it barred a tech company from selling data on people’s visits to medical centers and other health facilities. This was not affecting abortion. They were actually just trying to help people figure out where people are and help them sort of get through their medical undertakings. But this seems like kind of a big deal enforcing privacy post-Dobbs. It’s the first one of these I’ve seen. Have you seen any of these, Alice?

Ollstein: I’m in the same camp as you. Yeah. This is sort of the first I’ve seen of this. But as has been the trend over the last couple of years, it’s a very “throw things against the wall and see what sticks” kind of environment, and so you can’t dismiss the outliers because the outliers can very quickly become the norm.

Rovner: This obviously was not a company that was trying to get women’s menstrual data and figure out whether they’re pregnant and whether they’re going to have an abortion. But there is a lot of concern that because there’s so much medical data floating out now in the metaverse, shall we say, that it would not be that hard to do that. And I guess the FTC is trying to plant a flag and say, “Mm-mm, don’t even try.” Although I’m sure people will …

Ollstein: Again, circling back to our previous theme, like, who a presidential administration installs at places like the FTC that you might not think that has anything to do with health care and abortion, but it certainly does. It certainly can. Same with DOJ, Labor Department. A lot of these things touch on reproductive health in ways that aren’t always obvious.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, turning to prescription drug news, the FDA has approved Florida’s request to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But, Tami, you wrote about this. This comes with a long list of caveats, right? It’s not like they just opened the borders and said, “OK, buy what you want.”

Luhby: No, and Florida has also put forth a fairly restricted proposal. It’s only going to be for people in their public payer program, people like inmates and people who are cared for by the county health systems and, later, Medicaid. And it’s also a pretty small list of drugs, drugs for HIV/AIDS and mental illness, and certain ones. But no, there’s a lot of hurdles before the state can actually start importing drugs. There’s going to likely be a lawsuit by PhRMA. They came out pretty strongly against it. They don’t want this, and Canada doesn’t necessarily want this. They said this in 2020 when the Trump administration first indicated that they were going to move in this direction, and then Health Canada on Friday put out a pretty strong statement saying they are clear in its position. “Bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the U.S.” So there’s a long path before Florida will be able to actually see this and an even longer path before its general residents will see it. People may think, “Oh, I can go up to CVS now and order my Canadian version of the drug, which will be much cheaper.” And that’s not at all the case.

Rovner: Sarah, this has been going on for more than 20 years — I think I covered it first time in 1998 — because it’s really popular among Republicans and Democrats because it sounds so good. “We’ll just buy cheaper drugs from other countries where they have the same drugs, and they sell them for less money because they have price controls.” But Canada can’t even supply Florida, much less the rest of the country, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think people, sometimes you look at Canada on a map geographically. It’s a very large area, but the population compared to the U.S. is much smaller. So the supply chain that’s feeding Canada is very different. And then you get into why HHS and FDA has usually pushed back against this idea is because they’re concerned about securing the supply-chain safety and making sure people are actually getting what they … think they’re getting and know how to use the drug. And what’s basically happened under starting the Trump administration and then Biden’s kind of continued it is they came up with a pathway to sort of make importation potentially possible. But they put in so many hoops that these states will have to go through and so many processes in place to ensure the safety of it that by the time Florida does all of this, and again, as Tami mentioned, FDA hasn’t cleared any specific drugs for Florida to import yet; each drug product still is going to have to go through a bunch of steps to get that OK. So by the time they do all of that, it doesn’t look like it’s going to save very much money. Florida’s estimating maybe not quite $200 million for the first year and about the same the second year. If you look at just their Medicaid spending in a year on outpatient drugs, it’s like $1.-something billion. So you can see how tiny a savings that is.

Rovner: Yes. This is one of those things that’s not been partisan. It’s always been sort of the FDA wanting to protect the integrity of the supply chain, whether it’s controlled by Democrats or Republicans versus Democrats and Republicans who would like to find a way to help their constituents get cheaper drugs.

Luhby: One thing also to note that’s going to be interesting, because there’ve been so many people involved in this, we saw Ron DeSantis say yesterday at the debate that he took credit for pushing the federal government and beating the federal government, I think he said, to be allowed to import drugs. But this is also going to be a talking point that Trump and Biden will also be able to say on the campaign. So basically, everyone is probably going to try to take credit for this.

Rovner: Right. Everybody’s going to take credit for something that’s probably only going to happen in a very small way, if it happens at all.

Luhby: If it all happens at all.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, also this week, drug maker Eli Lilly said it is setting up its own telehealth service to help patients access not only its soon-to-be blockbuster weight loss drug Zepbound but also other diabetes and migraine drugs, basically cutting out the doctor or at least cutting out the patient’s regular doctor, if they have one. Sarah, this feels to me like a really big sea change. Is the FDA going to let this happen? Is the AMA going to let this happen?

Karlin-Smith: It’s really interesting. I think the first headline of it makes it seem a little bit more extreme or maybe novel than once you actually look into the details because Lilly’s …

Rovner: Kind of like drug importation.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Although I think more patients maybe will actually be served by this program. But, basically, Eli Lilly is setting up a website that will then connect patients to outside telehealth companies that have the ability to prescribe the drug. Again, these telehealth companies are supposedly prescribing all different drugs, not just Eli Lilly products. The doctor’s supposed to make sure you actually qualify for the product, and so forth. And then Lilly also seems to have developed partnerships with a couple online pharmacy companies that could then directly mail you the product. So Eli Lilly is sort of helping facilitate these connections for patients. But I think probably to avoid various scrutinies by the federal government, they’ve tried to disconnect themselves a few steps, but certainly make the process of getting a drug and their drug easier for patients. Also helping ease the process of getting any copay support or coupons the company offers. So they seem to be kind of taking advantage of a trend that we’ve seen in other areas, with ADHD, like male sexual health products, and so forth, of people wanting to do this through telehealth. And so they’re trying to, I think, get at least a cut of it or at least help steer their product there. But there’s definitely going to be questions, I think, around how you handle advertising and other things for the government to look at.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a space that, now, we’re going to have to start watching as well as everything else. All right. Well, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” which is going to Olympic gold medalist gymnast Mary Lou Retton. Retton, who is now in her mid-50s, contracted a rare form of pneumonia, ended up in the hospital for a month, and became the subject of a crowdfunding effort launched by her daughter because she didn’t have health insurance. Retton, who has been very closed-mouthed about her illness and what happened to the half a million dollars the crowdfunding campaign raised, as is her right, did do an interview this week with the “Today” show on NBC in which she said she couldn’t afford health insurance because her preexisting conditions made it too expensive. For the record, if you’re uninsured, you can still sign up for an Affordable Care Act Plan in most states, and you can’t be charged more due to preexisting conditions. And there are still extra subsidies that we talked about earlier that were implemented during covid that makes insurance even more affordable. Why is it that people don’t know this yet?

Ollstein: Well, as we saw with record-breaking enrollment, a lot of people do know it, but the people who don’t are still loud.

Rovner: We’re 10 years into the ACA!

Ollstein: Yes. It’s funny. I mean, living in D.C. and doing this work, I always try to think about what of all of our reporting actually breaks through around the country. And it’s always interesting to see what does and what doesn’t.

Rovner: I used to stomp around the NPR newsroom when the ACA was just getting up and running, saying, “It is not my job to do the administration’s publicity. It’s really not my job.” But …

Luhby: Yeah.

Rovner: … they are still working on it.

Luhby: It also may be selective ignorance, because I’m sure if she actually asked anyone about health insurance or called any agent or insurer and said, “Well, I have this preexisting condition,” they may have said, “Well, on the ACA, it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Rovner: Yes. And that if she said she didn’t have the money after her divorce, it’s like those are the people who are eligible for big subsidies. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with AMA President Jesse Ehrenfeld, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast, in person here in our D.C. studio, Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld, president of the American Medical Association. Dr. Ehrenfeld is an anesthesiologist, medical school professor, researcher on medical information technology, and director of a statewide health philanthropy in Wisconsin, among other activities. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran twice over, as well as the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld, thank you so much for coming in. You are a very busy person.

Jesse Ehrenfeld: Well, thanks for having me. It’s great to talk to you today.

Rovner: So I want to start on Capitol Hill, since we’re here in D.C.

Ehrenfeld: Sure.

Rovner: And Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear.

Ehrenfeld: We hope they’re working.

Rovner: I know physicians are facing, again, a cut in Medicare pay, but that’s not the only AMA priority here in Washington at the moment, right?

Ehrenfeld: Well, it’s a big one for us. And, you know, it’s really painful that you turn the clock back, Jan. 1, and 3.37% Medicare cut to physician payments. It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward, short of this Jan. 19 deadline coming up. But we can’t have it. Physicians continue to struggle. My parents lost their own primary care physician because of a challenge with their primary care doctor not being able to take Medicare anymore. And what we’re seeing is more and more doctors just stopping seeing new Medicare patients, or opting out of the program entirely. So, every other provider under Medicare is actually fighting for how many increase they’re getting while doctors are getting cut. So we’re hopeful that we can solve this, but it really is something that’s just urgent for us as an association.

Rovner: I thought we took care of this in 2015. I feel like it’s Groundhog Day. I covered it every year from about 2003 to about 2015, and then we solved it briefly.

Ehrenfeld: We solved one problem and replaced it with another, unfortunately. And the doomed SGR did die in 2015 — the unsustainable “sustainable growth rate” problem — that did lead to those year-end patches. And, unfortunately now, though, because of budget neutrality rules and other — we’ll call them “features” — of the program, we’re in the situation again. We do have optimism, though, that we might get some standing inflationary updates. There was the introduction of a bill last session. And we hope that that can be something that does move forward once we get through this time-sensitive issue to deal with the 3.37% cut.

Rovner: So I feel like the physician shortage is kind of like climate change. People have been warning about it for decades, and suddenly it’s here.

Ehrenfeld: It’s here.

Rovner: With people having to wait weeks or sometimes months to see a doctor. Obviously, like with climate change, it’s going to take a while to get out of the hole that we have dug. I know we’ve seen the establishment of several new medical schools, both allopathic and osteopathic, in the past decade. How soon might we be able to see some relief, and what more will it take beyond training more doctors?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re opening more medical schools, but we’re not actually training more doctors. And that’s the problem. We haven’t expanded GME [Graduate Medical Education] residency programs. And unfortunately, because, as you know, GME funding through the federal government is tied to a fixed cap, set in the 1990s by Medicare, we’ve opened all these new schools and the students don’t have a place to go to train. So that’s a problem that we need to solve. We’ve had a little tiny, tiny increase these past few years, a couple of hundred spots here and there. We need thousands more training spots open. We need the GME dollars to come from Medicare. We also need to solve some of the issues around how we get international medical graduates here and ready to practice in the U.S. Twenty-five percent of practicing physicians in the U.S. were trained abroad. Most people don’t know that. We already have a huge international workforce, but we do silly things, like we’ll let an international doctor train their residency here, and then we make them go away for two years to their home country before they can come back. There are H-1B visa waiver bills that are circulating around the Conrad 30 extension. We need to do those things as well. Unfortunately, as you’re aware, immigration reform is a challenging issue here in Washington. But there are commonsense solutions that have bipartisan support. And we’re hopeful that we can get some workforce pressure reductions, not just by expanding GME for U.S.-trained individuals, but also those international graduates.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like people forget that immigration is about more than just people coming across the southern border. There are a lot of skilled-worker issues in the immigration debate.

Ehrenfeld: In lots of industries, health care, technology, other places as well.

Rovner: I know the rise — or should I say the “re-rise” — of prior authorization requirements from insurance companies is something that contributes to physician burnout and the physician shortage by driving doctors out of practice, just from frustration. The Biden administration has a new regulation to limit prior authorization in the pipeline. Assuming that that regulation is finalized soon, how close will that come to fully addressing the problem for your members?

Ehrenfeld: You know, we hope it’ll move the needle a little bit, but we need wholesale reform, and we need to do more than Medicare Advantage plans. Unfortunately, I hear every week from colleagues who are just at their wits’ end, and it’s frustrating. I see it with my own parents. I’m an anesthesiologist. I have a habit now, I ask my patients: “So how long did it take your surgery to get scheduled?” Eh, it’s a couple weeks or a month. I said, “And how long did it take for your insurance company to approve the procedure?” And it’s months. And often what they tell me is they approved it, and then they denied it after they approved it. And they have to go through all of this rigmarole that just doesn’t make sense.

Rovner: You think that Congress is going to need to step in at some point, or is this something that can be worked out?

Ehrenfeld: I think we’re going to have to have regulatory relief from Congress, and we’re pushing for that through our grassroots network. Certainly, we try to bring all the third-party payers together. We have a set of principles that, theoretically, third-party payers have agreed to, and yet they ignore them, and they continue to just harass patients, really to improve their bottom line, but not doing what’s in their best interests.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about physician autonomy. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen an increasing level of what I call legislators practicing medicine. Now we have the Supreme Court …

Ehrenfeld: It’s OK if they have an MD.

Rovner: [laughs] That’s true. Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an MD as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors facing women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal EMTALA law, or their medical ethics, all of which may conflict. What’s the AMA doing to help doctors navigate these very choppy and changing legal waters?

Ehrenfeld: “Choppy” is a good word for it. It’s confusing. And since the decision, the Dobbs decision, came out, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. And I can tell you, it’s unbelievable that now physicians are having to call their attorneys, the hospital legal counsel to figure out what they can and can’t do. And obviously, this is not a picture that is a picture that supports women’s health. So we are optimistic that we might get a positive ruling with this EMTALA decision on the Supreme Court. But, obviously, there’s a long way that we need to go to make sure that we can maintain access for reproductive care.

Rovner: You’re younger than I am, but when I was growing up and covering this, the AMA didn’t want to talk about abortion because it was controversial. And now, certainly in the last five or 10 years, the AMA has come out. Do you think that’s something that has dawned on the rest of the members of the AMA that this is not necessarily about abortion, this is about the ability to practice medicine?

Ehrenfeld: Well, you know, look, if you look at some of these socially charged restrictive laws, whether it’s in transgender health or abortion access, or other items, we take the same foundational approach, which is that physicians and patients ought to be making their health care decisions without legislative interference.

Rovner: So it’s not just abortion and reproductive health where lawmakers are trying to dictate medical practice but also care for transgender kids and adults and even treatment for covid and other infectious diseases. How big a priority is this for the AMA, and what are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we will always stand up for science. And it’s so important that as an association we do that. Our foundation in 1847 was to get rid of quackery and snake oil salesmen in medicine. And yet here we are trying to do some of those same things with misinformation, disinformation. And obviously, even if you look at the attack on PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention — you know, an important part of the Affordable Care Act, right? Making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — those things are just unconscionable. We have treatments. We know that they work. We ought to make sure that patients and their physicians can have access to them.

Rovner: What about doctors who are pushing things that you know to be not helpful?

Ehrenfeld: We call them out, and we would encourage others to call them out. If somebody is trying to sell something that’s inappropriate or do something that doesn’t follow the evidence, we need to call it for what it is, which is inappropriate.

Rovner: It’s not just legislators who want to practice medicine these days. We also have the rise of artificial intelligence, which I know promises both huge advances …

Ehrenfeld: I’m real, by the way.

Rovner: [both laugh] Yes, I can attest that you’re real. At least you seem real. But, obviously, our artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push the AMA more towards the former, the good things, and less towards the latter, the unintended consequences?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re really excited about it. I’m excited about it. I have an informatics background. So, you know, I believe that there is so much power that these technologies and tools can bring, but we need to make sure that the technology is an asset, not a burden. And we have all lived through the painful rollout of electronic health records where that just was not the case. So we did survey — we do routine surveys, data that’s a nationally representative sample — in August of this year, it’s on our website. An equal number of physicians are excited about AI as they are terrified about AI, anxious, concerned, right? And we need to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework. We’re very appreciative of the ONC [Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology] rule that came out, out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], at the end of last year. Certainly, the Biden administration’s, whole of government’s approach we think is important, but that is no substitution for regulation. And we need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The FDA doesn’t have the framework that they need. The system set up in the ’60s and ’70s for drugs and biologics and devices hasn’t held up. So we know that there have to be changes. We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

Rovner: Dr. Ehrenfeld, that’s all the time we have. Thank you so much for joining us.

Ehrenfeld: Oh, thanks for having me. It’s been a treat.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, my extra credit is titled “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by KFF Health News’ Phil Galewitz. And as many of our podcast listeners know, states are reviewing the eligibility of their residents in Medicaid and terminating the coverage of those they deem ineligible. Roughly 14.4 million people have been disenrolled. And the big question is, what has happened to them? Did they return to Medicaid? Did they find coverage elsewhere, or did they become uninsured? And that’s the question that many actually Medicaid directors have been unable to answer.

So Phil’s story looks at a first-of-its-kind study conducted in October by Utah’s Medicaid agency. And in Utah, 94% of those disenrolled were dropped for procedural reasons, such as not returning their paperwork, rather than being deemed ineligible. And the study found that 57% of respondents did not attempt to renew their Medicaid coverage. Thirty-nine percent shifted to employer plans, and 15% signed up for Affordable Care Act coverage. So they remained insured, but 30% became uninsured. The story also shows that many Medicaid enrollees said that they had trouble reapplying for Medicaid coverage. They didn’t get the documents. They didn’t have the necessary paperwork. They couldn’t get their questions answered. And these are all things that we’ve heard about anecdotally, but the Utah study and Phil’s story actually put some numbers to it. And interestingly, Utah officials also confirmed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is conducting two audits of the state’s Medicaid unwinding. So we’ll see what happens and what we find out from Utah may inform us about what’s happening in the rest of the country.

Rovner: Yes, we have noted before that HHS has been very close-mouthed about how it is trying to get states to maintain coverage for these people who are, if not eligible for Medicaid anymore, eligible for something else. Alice, you have kind of a related story, so why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah, I have something from our own Rachel Cohrs at Stat. It’s called “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University.” It’s a great accountability story about how taxpayers were convinced to put up tens of millions of dollars that they thought was going to provide care for very poor people in the area around Austin, Texas. And instead, basically, none of that money is going to … directly to provide that care to people. And instead, it’s gone to build fancy buildings at this medical school, and overhead, and recruiting faculty. And the school and hospital insist that all of this trickles down eventually to patients. But it’s not what taxpayers feel they were promised. And so they’re getting upset about that.

Rovner: It is a very nice medical school. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a New York Times story from Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” and it’s about Singulair, a now generic asthma medicine. Over 20 years after it was first approved, FDA added what’s known as its strictest warning, a black box warning, warning of very serious mental health side effects, including suicidal thoughts. And The New York Times investigation seems to have found out that really these messages are not reaching doctors. They’re not reaching patients, or parents, and many young kids who are taking this medicine. And that has led to many ill effects, including some very young people who have died by suicide. And it’s a really good dive into the challenges that FDA faces and kind of translating their regulatory action into something that then gets communicated to a doctor, and then a doctor translates to a patient. In many ways, it’s not that surprising a story to me because I think it’s kind of well known that not a lot of people read drug labels and then certainly not on an individual level, but even on a doctor level. And I think a lot of the risk-benefit conversations that FDA envisions happen between doctors and patients before people take drugs don’t actually happen in the real world. I once actually had a doctor who told me, “This medicine has a box warning, but don’t worry about it.” Which I always find as a pretty funny story as a drug reporter. And it just also raises a lot of issues, this story, about how drugs are studied on children and what’s done to make sure that as a drug goes generic, the safety is still being monitored, and somebody is responsible again for ensuring people are aware of new safety updates. So it’s a really good dive. I think the thing I was most struck by, though, is I think the solutions perhaps here are not ones that would be very popular in the U.S., which is that by design, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. And, in most cases, I don’t think Americans would want FDA pushing the boundaries much further to get at the safety hurdles this story maybe flags.

Rovner: Yeah. More along our theme of the federal government and its role in society. Well, my extra credit this week is actually a collection of stories. It’s sparked by the headline on this month’s issue of Consumer Reports, which is “How to Eat Less Plastic.” The first story is from CNN reporting on a study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says.” And it basically says that plastic sheds just like skin cells do. So anything you eat or drink that’s stored or wrapped in plastic is going to get into whatever it is you’re putting into your body. If that’s not enough to give you pause, my second story is from ScienceAlert, which is a website, called “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too.” And it’s about a study that found that many paper straws contain those forever chemicals we keep hearing about, called PFAS, which, of course, are also in many plastics. Finally, if that’s not enough plastic for you, here’s a story from The Washington Post called “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products.” Basically, those laundry sheets that can replace the use of all those plastic bottles that we keep seeing ads for? Apparently, even many of those sheets that claim to be, quote, “plastic-free” contains something called polyvinyl alcohol, which is, you guessed it, a plastic that’s been found in drinking water and breast milk. I think the message here is everything you do is probably bad for you in some way, so be humble and do the best you can.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, my fellow happy Michigan Wolverine this week, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m trying to be places, but then it’s hard to be at all of them. So mostly Twitter and Bluesky, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: The best place to find me is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice.

Ollstein: Still on X @AliceOllstein, and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Congress is back this week and feverishly working on a bipartisan agreement to fund the government for the rest of the 2024 fiscal year. Ahead of a potential vote, I spoke with Jesse Ehrenfeld, the president of the American Medical Association, the nation’s largest lobby group for doctors, about his organization’s priorities in Washington. 

Some background: Ehrenfeld is a Wisconsin anesthesiologist, researcher and medical school professor who also directs a health-care philanthropy in his state. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran, the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. You can hear the whole interview later today on “What the Health?”

Rovner: Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear. I know physicians are facing, again, a cut in Medicare pay, but that’s not the only AMA priority here in Washington at the moment, right? [Note: A 3.37 percent cut to Medicare physician payments took effect Jan. 1.]

Ehrenfeld: It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward.

Physicians continue to struggle. My parents lost their own primary care physician because of a challenge with their primary care doctor not being able to take Medicare anymore. And what we’re seeing is more and more doctors just stopping seeing new Medicare patients, or opting out of the program entirely.

Rovner: Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an M.D., as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors [treating] women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or their medical ethics, all of which may conflict. What’s the AMA doing to help doctors navigate these very choppy and changing legal waters?  

Ehrenfeld: Choppy is a good word for it. It’s confusing. And since the Dobbs decision, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. It’s unbelievable that now physicians are having to call their attorneys, the hospital legal counsel, to figure out what they can and can’t do. And, obviously, this is not a picture that supports women’s health. So we are optimistic that we might get a positive ruling with this EMTALA decision on the Supreme Court. But, obviously, there’s a long way that we need to go to make sure that we can maintain access for reproductive care.

Rovner: Do you think that’s something that has dawned on the rest of the members of the AMA that this is not necessarily about abortion, this is about the ability to practice medicine?  

Ehrenfeld: If you look at some of these socially charged restrictive laws, whether it’s in transgender health or abortion access, or other items, we take the same foundational approach, which is that physicians and patients ought to be making their health-care decisions without legislative interference. 

Rovner: It’s not just abortion and reproductive health where lawmakers are trying to dictate medical practice, but also care for transgender kids and adults and even treatment for covid and other infectious diseases. What are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?  

Ehrenfeld: Our foundation in 1847 was to get rid of quackery and snake-oil salesmen in medicine. And yet here we are trying to do some of those same things with misinformation, disinformation. And obviously, even if you look at the attack on PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention — making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — [not providing PrEP is] just unconscionable. We have treatments. We know that they work. We ought to make sure that patients and their physicians can have access to them.

Rovner: Artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push [medicine] more toward the former, the good things, and less toward the latter, the unintended consequences?  

Ehrenfeld: We need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The [Food and Drug Administration] doesn’t have the framework that they need.  We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Even without covid dominating the headlines, 2023 was a busy year for health policy. The ever-rising cost of health care remained an issue plaguing patients and policymakers alike, while millions of Americans lost insurance coverage as states redetermined eligibility for their Medicaid programs in the wake of the public health emergency.

Meanwhile, women experiencing pregnancy complications continue to get caught up in the ongoing abortion debate, with both women and their doctors potentially facing prison time in some cases.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As the next election year fast approaches, the Biden administration is touting how much it has accomplished in health care. Whether the voting public is paying attention is a different story. Affordable Care Act enrollment has reached record levels due in part to expanded financial help available to pay premiums, and the administration is also pointing to its enforcement efforts to rein in high drug prices.
• The federal government is adding staff to go after “corporate greed” in health care, targeting in particular the fast-growing role of private equity. The complicated, opaque, and evolving nature of corporate ownership in the nation’s health system makes legislation and regulation a challenge. But increased interest and oversight could lead to a better understanding of the problems of and, eventually, remedies for a profit-focused system of health care.
• Concluding a year that saw many low-income Americans lose insurance coverage as states reviewed eligibility for everyone in the Medicaid program, there’s no shortage of access issues left to tackle. The Biden administration is urging states to take action to help millions of children regain coverage that was stripped from them.
• Also, many patients are all too familiar with the challenges of obtaining insurance approval for care. There is support in Congress to scrutinize and rein in the use of algorithms to deny care to Medicare Advantage patients based on broad comparisons rather than individual patient circumstances.
• And in abortion news, some conservative states are trying to block efforts to put abortion on the ballot next year — a tactic some used in the past against Medicaid expansion.
• This week in health misinformation is an ad from Florida’s All Family Pharmacy touting the benefits of ivermectin for treating covid-19. (Rigorous scientific studies have found that the antibacterial drug does not work against covid and should not be used for that purpose.)

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau about his joint KFF Health News-New York Times series “Dying Broke.”

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Business Insider’s “‘I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby,’” by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner.

Joanne Kenen: The Trace’s “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words,” by Justin Agrelo.

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding if They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum; and David Armstrong and Doris Burke, ProPublica.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” by Lauren Clason.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat News’ “Humana Used Algorithm in ‘Fraudulent Scheme’ to Deny Care to Medicare Advantage Patients, Lawsuit Alleges,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.
• USA Today’s “Cigna Denied a Lung Transplant for a Cancer Patient. Insurer Now Says That Was an Eerror.’ By Ken Alltucker.
• Politico’s “Conservatives Move to Keep Abortion off the 2024 Ballot,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly.
• The New York Times’ “Why Democracy Hasn’t Settled the Abortion Question,” by Kate Zernike.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: 2023 Is a Wrap

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 2023 Is a WrapEpisode Number: 327Published: Dec. 21, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 21, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau, co-author of a super scary series done with The New York Times about long-term care. It’s called “Dying Broke.” But first, this week’s news. I thought we would try something a little bit different this week. It just happened that most of this week’s news also illustrates themes that we’ve been following throughout the year. So we get a this-week update plus a little review of the last 12 months, since this is our last podcast of the year. I want to start with the theme of, “The Biden administration has gotten a ton of things done in health, but nobody seems to have noticed.”

We learned this week that, with a month still to go, Affordable Care Act plan sign-ups are already at historic highs, topping 15 million, thanks, at least in part, to extra premium subsidies that the administration helped get past this Congress and which Congress may or may not extend next year. The administration has also managed to score some wins in the battle against high drug prices, which is something that has eluded even previous Democratic administrations. Its latest effort is the unveiling of 48 prescription drugs officially on the naughty list — that’s my phrase, not theirs — for having raised their prices by more than inflation during the last quarter of this year, and whose manufacturers may now have to pay rebates. This is something in addition to the negotiations for the high-priced drugs, right, Rachel?

Cohrs: Yeah, this was just a routine announcement about the drugs that are expected to be charged rebates and drugmakers don’t have to pay immediately; I think they’re kind of pushing that a little further down the road, as to when they’ll actually invoice those rebates. But the announcement raised a question in my mind of — certainly they want to tout that they’re enforcing the law; that’s been a big theme of this year — but it brought up a question for me as to whether the law is working to deter price hikes if these companies are all doing it anyway, so just a thought.

Rovner: It is the first year.

Cohrs: It is. This started going into effect at the end of last year, so it’s been a little over a year, but this is assessed quarterly, so the list has grown as time has gone on. But just a thought. Certainly there’s time for things to play out differently, but that’s at least what we’ve seen so far.

Rovner: They could say, which they did this week, it’s like, Look, these are drugs because they raised the prices, they’re going to have to give back some of that money. At least in theory, they’re going to have to give back some of that money.

Cohrs: In Medicare.

Rovner: Right. In Medicare. Some of this is still in court though, right?

Cohrs: Yes. So I think at any moment, I think this has been a theme of this year and will be carrying into next year, that there are several lawsuits filed by drugmakers, by trade associations, that just have not been resolved yet, and I think some of the cases are close to being fully briefed. So we may see kind of initial court rulings as to whether the law as a whole is constitutional. It is worth noting that most of those lawsuits are solely challenging the negotiation piece of the law and not the inflation rebates, but this could fall apart at any moment. There could be a stay, and I expect that the first court ruling is not going to be the last. There’s going to be a long appeals process. Who knows how long it’s going to take, how high it will go, but I think there is just a lot of uncertainty around the law as a whole.

Rovner: So the administration gets to stand there and say, “We did something about drug prices,” and the drug companies get to stand there and say, “Not yet you didn’t.”

Cohrs: Exactly. Yes, and they can both be correct.

Rovner: That’s basically where we are.

Cohrs: Yes.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, meanwhile, in other news from this week and from this year, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services are all adding staff to go after what Biden officials call “corporate greed” — that is their words — in health care. Apparently these new staffers are going to focus on private equity ownership of health care providers, something we have talked about a lot and so-called roll-ups, which we haven’t talked about as much. Somebody explain what a roll-up is please.

Kenen: Julie, why don’t you?

Rovner: OK. I guess I’m going to explain what a roll-up is. I finally learned what a roll-up is. When companies merge and they make a really big company, then the Federal Trade Commission gets to say, “Mmm, you may be too big, and that’s going to hurt trade.” What a roll-up is is when a big company goes and buys a bunch of little companies, so each one doesn’t make it too big, but together they become this enormous — either a hospital system or a nursing home system or something that, again, is not necessarily going to make free trade and price limits by trade happen. So this is something that we have been seeing all year. Can the government really do anything about this? This also feels like sort of a lot of, in theory, they can do these things and in practice it’s really hard.

Cohrs: I feel like what we’ve seen in this space — I think my colleague Brittany wrote about kind of this move — is that the corporate structures around these entities are so complicated. Is it going to discourage companies from doing anything by hiring a couple people? Probably not. But I think the people power behind understanding how these structures work can lay the groundwork for future steps on understanding the landscape, understanding the tactics, and what we see, at least on the congressional side, is that a lot of times Congress is working 10 years behind some of the tactics that these companies are using to build market power and influence prices. So I think the more people power, the better, in terms of understanding what the most current tactics are, but it doesn’t seem like this will have significant immediate difference on these practices.

Kenen: I think that the gap between where the government is and where the industry is is so enormous. I think the role of PE [private equity] in health care has grown so fast in a relatively short period of time. Was there a presence before? Yes, but it’s just really taken off. So I think that if those who advocate for greater oversight, if they could just get some transparency, that would be their win, at the moment. They cannot go in and stop private equity. They would like to get to the point where they could curb abuse or set parameters or however you want to phrase it, and different people would phrase it in different ways, but right now they don’t even really know what’s going on. So, even among the Democrats, there was a fight this year about whether to include transparency language between [the House committees on] Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, and I don’t think that was ever resolved.

I think that’s part of the “Let’s do it in January” mess. But I think they just sort of want not only greater insight for the government, but also for the public: What is going on here and what are its implications? People who criticize private equity — the defenders can always find some examples of companies that are doing good things. They exist. We all know who the two or three companies we hear all the time are, but I think it’s a really enormous black box, and not only is it a black box, but it’s a black box that’s both growing and shifting, and getting into areas that we didn’t anticipate a few years ago, like ophthalmology. We’ve seen some of these studies this year about specialties that we didn’t think of as PE targets. So it’s a big catch-up for roll-up.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think it’s also another place that the administration — and I think the Trump administration tried to do this too. Republicans don’t love some of these things either. The public complains about high health care costs. They’re right; we have ridiculously high health care costs in this country, much higher than in other countries, and this is one of the reasons why, is that there are companies going in who are looking to simply do it to make a profit and they can go in and buy these things up and raise prices. That’s a lot of what we’re seeing and a lot of why people are so frustrated. I think at very least it at least shows them: It’s like, “See, this is what’s happening, and this is one of the reasons why you’re paying so much.”

Kenen: It’s also changing how providers and practitioners work, and how much autonomy they have and who they work for. It’s in an era when we have workforce shortages in some sectors and burnout and dissatisfaction. There are pockets at least, and again, we don’t really know how big, because we don’t have our arms around this, but there are pockets; at least we do know where the PE ownership and how they dictate practice is worsening these issues of burnout and dissatisfaction. I’m having dinner tomorrow night with a expert on health care antitrust, so if we were doing this next week, I would be so much smarter.

Rovner: We will be sure to call on you in January. Workforce burnout: This is another theme that we’ve talked about a lot this year.

Kenen: It’s getting into places you just wouldn’t think. I was talking to a physical therapist the other day and her firm has been bought up, and it’s changing the way she practices and her ability to make decisions and how often she’s allowed to see a patient.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another continuing theme. Well, yet another big issue this year has been the so-called Medicaid unwinding, as states redetermine eligibility for the first time since the pandemic began. All year, we’ve been hearing stories about people who are still eligible being dropped from the rolls, either mistakenly or because they failed to file paperwork they may never have received. Among the more common mistakes that states are making is cutting off children’s coverage because their parents are no longer eligible, even though children are eligible for coverage up to much higher family incomes than their parents. So even if the parents aren’t eligible anymore, the children most likely are.

This week, the federal government reached out to the nine states that have the highest rates of discontinuing children’s coverage, including some pretty big states, like Texas and Florida, urging them to use shortcuts that could get those children’s insurance back. But this has been a push-and-pull effort all year between the states and the federal government, with the feds trying not to push too hard. At one point, they wouldn’t even tell us which states they were sort of chiding for taking too many people off too fast. And it feels like some of the states don’t really want to have all these people on Medicaid and they would just as soon drop them even if they might be eligible. Is that kind of where we are?

Raman: You can kind of look to see the tea leaves at what some of these states are. The states that the health secretary wrote to, that have 60% of the decline in the kids being disenrolled, align pretty well with the states that have not expanded Medicaid. So they’re already going to have much fewer people enrolled than states where the eligibility levels are a lot more generous. So it’s not surprising, and some of these states have been just a little bit more aggressive from the get-go or said that they wanted to do the eligibility redeterminations a lot faster than some of the other states that wanted to take the longer time, reevaluate different ways to see if someone was still eligible, whether they were maybe getting SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits or other things like that. So it’s not surprising.

Rovner: You mean do it more carefully.

Raman: Yeah, yeah, so I think that the letter is one step, but if those states are really going to take up implementing these other strategies to kind of decrease that drop-off, unclear, just because they have been pretty proactive about doing this in a quick process.

Rovner: I also noticed that the states that the HHS secretary wrote to kind of tracked with the states that didn’t expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but interestingly, that meant that there would’ve been fewer parents who were eligible in the first place. So there shouldn’t have been as many children cut off, because there weren’t as many parents who ever got onto Medicaid in those states, which is why it made me raise my eyebrows a little bit. Again, I think this is something that we shall continue to follow going into next year.

Kenen: But we should also point out that even the more pro-Medicaid, liberal states have not done a great job with unwinding. It’s been bumpy pretty much across the board. It’s been very problematic. It’s a clumsy process in a normal year, and trying to catch up on three years’ worth — this is a population where people’s income varies a lot. Are you just over the line? Are you just under the line? It’s fluctuating, the eligibility changes. But you try to do three years at once after all the chaos, with political undercurrents such as the nonexpansion states, and it makes it harder and messier.

Rovner: Which was predicted and came true. So yet another theme from this year is what I’m calling the managed care backlash redux. In the late 1990s, when lots of people were herded into managed care for the first time, there were lots of horror stories about patients being denied care, doctors being put through bureaucratic hoops, unqualified people making medical decisions. There’s a bipartisan bill that almost came to fruition in 2001 for what was called a patient’s bill of rights, but it was pushed off the agenda by 9/11. Most of the protections in that bill, however, were eventually included in the Affordable Care Act.

So now it’s 2023, and lo and behold, those same issues are back. A top issue for the American Medical Association this year is reining in prior authorization requirements, which require doctors to actually get permission before their patients can get recommended care. In one particularly painful story recently, a woman who’d been approved for a lung transplant had her surgery canceled by her insurer, literally on the way to the OR [operating room]. Later, and not coincidentally after a public outcry, the insurer, Cigna, called the whole thing, quote, “An error.” So she did finally get her lung transplant. Joanne, you covered the patient’s bill of rights fight with me back in the day. Most things that are being complained about now are now illegal. So why are we seeing so much of it again?

Kenen: Because there’s confusion about — patients don’t know what their rights are. All of us are savvy and all of us have had something in our own insurance that we don’t understand, or maybe we end up navigating it, but it’s not ever easy. Things like prior authorization — they say, “Well, we have to make sure people are getting appropriate care.” There is an element of truth there; there is overuse in American health care. There are people who get things they don’t really need or should try something less intrusive and less expensive first. So you have this genuine issue of overtreatment, back surgery being the classic example. Many people will do just as well with physical therapy and things like that than they will with an $80,000 operation. In fact, they might do better with the PT and not with the $80,000 operation.

So is there any validity to the idea of making sure people get appropriate care? Yes, but they say no to stuff that they should be covering. That’s clear, and that patients don’t always know what the right pathway is, because doctors also have incentives, or just the way they’re trained and the way they look at their — surgeons like to cut. It’s what they’re trained to do. They trained for years. So it’s really complicated, because there’s this collision between overuse and overtreatment and overcharging and all the over, over, over stuff that comes from the provider world and the no, no, no, no, no, no, no, “you can’t have that” stuff that comes from the insurer world, sometimes appropriately, but often not appropriately.

Rovner: Then I guess you load onto that the private equity and now the providers whose overlords are in it to make a profit. Then you have sort of private equity butting heads with insurance, which is one of the reasons I think we are sort of ending up here. But it certainly does feel very reminiscent of things that I’ve been through before. We’re seeing yet a similar story with Medicare Advantage, which is the private Medicare managed care program that now enrolls more than half of the Medicare population and makes lots of money for its private insurance companies that offer them.

Rachel, your colleagues wrote about a Humana algorithm that was being used to deny care after a patient had received it for, quote-unquote, “an average period of time, regardless of the patient’s condition,” meaning that if patient is sicker than average, they were saying, “Too bad, we’re only going to give this to you for 18 days because that’s what the average patient needs. If you need more, sorry about that.” So Congress is now trying to get into the act, trying to ensure that Medicare patients, who tend to vote in disproportionate numbers, get their needed care. The insurance industry is pushing back against the pushback. What’s the outlook for Congress actually getting something done on this issue? I’ve heard a lot of talk. I haven’t seen a whole lot of action.

Cohrs: Yeah, I mean certainly there has been talk — and just to point out that the Humana lawsuit is related to the UnitedHealth Group lawsuit that we saw earlier; it’s the same company making the algorithm. Bob and Casey’s reporting was just more focused on UnitedHealth Group, because they got internal documents showing the correlation between the quote-unquote “recommendation” of this algorithm and care decisions and denials and people being cut off from their rehab services. So I think certainly, I think there has been a lot of outcry. We’re seeing this play out in the legal system beforehand. This is an issue that we’ve discussed as well.

Are we going to regulate through the courts, because everything else is too slow? I think AI is certainly a hot topic on the Hill at the moment, and there is lawmaker interest, but this is just a very complicated space. Lawmakers, though they might try their best, are not the most tech-savvy people. These are very powerful interests that I would imagine would oppose some of these regulations if they were to actually materialize. So, there’s nothing imminent. Certainly if we see these lawsuits keep piling up, if we see discovery, if we see some more examples of this happening where other companies are using the algorithms as well, a groundswell — as you mentioned, Medicare patients are an important constituency — I think we could see some action, but it’s not looking imminent at this time.

Kenen: The other thing is there’s been a number of reports from a number of media outlets, Stat and others, that these algorithms are being used without any people to work with them. Like, OK, here’s this algorithm and it’s doing these batches of like, I’m going to say no to 50,000 people in 20 seconds. I’m exaggerating a little bit there, but yes, is there legitimate questions about what is appropriate treatment? Yes.

Or you hear these stories about people told, “You can’t have this drug; you have to have that drug at first,” but they would try that drug and it didn’t work for them, and there’s just no way of — the reason we have five or six similar drugs is that in some cases, those slight differences, people respond differently, mental health being a huge example of that, right? Where it could be very hard to get people on the right drugs, if person A doesn’t respond the same way as person B, even if they have the same condition. But 50,000, I don’t know if that’s the right number, but I think I remember reading one where it was 50,000 going through an algorithm. That’s not appropriate use; that’s mass production of saying no to some legitimate needs.

Rovner: Sandhya, I see you nodding there. I know that this is something that’s kind of bipartisan, right? Members of Congress get complaints about Medicare, which is something that they do, members of Congress, oversee. It is a government program, even though these are being run by private companies. I’m sort of wondering when this is going to reach a boiling point that’s going to require something to be done.

Raman: I think with some of these issues that we face that are kind of evergreen here, there has been a bipartisan push to find kind of ways to reform the prior authorization process. We’ve had people as different as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) say they want reform, or Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is very different from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and they’ve both said that, similar things that …

Rovner: Some of the most conservative and the most liberal members of Congress.

Raman: Yeah, so we’ve got a broad stretch, but I think at the same time, if you look at some of the other things that we have to deal with here — Congress is out for the year, but for next year, we are fairly behind in that we have a long list of things that need to be extended by mid-January. Then we have just funding all of HHS and a number of other government things by early February. So getting something from start to finish next year, which is also an election year, is going to be tough. So I think that there’s interest there, but I don’t know that getting something hashed out is going to be the easiest next year of all years.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that Congress took an incomplete in most subjects this year. Well, finally this week, the topic that I think has been in every podcast this year, which is abortion. One of the threads that has wound through this year’s coverage is the strong support for abortion rights from voters, even in red and red-ish states. This year, Ohio voters affirmed a right to abortion, twice actually; there was a technical vote back in the summer. And in Virginia, Democrats flipped the legislature by running against Republican promises to impose a compromise 15-week ban, which apparently did not seem to be a compromise to most of the voters. That was after a half a dozen states voted in favor of the abortion rights position in the 2022 midterms. So this week we have a pair of stories, one from Politico and one from The New York Times, about how anti-abortion forces are working to keep future abortion-related questions off of the ballot in states where there’s still that possibility, including Florida, Missouri, Arizona, and Nevada.

One Republican Missouri lawmaker said that the right to life, quote, “should not be taken away because of a vote by a simple majority,” which frankly felt a little breathtaking to me. He has filed a bill that would require ballot measures to pass not just statewide, but with a majority in more than half of the state’s congressional districts. So basically in the really red parts of the states, a majority there would also have to vote for this. These people are getting very creative in their attempts to stop these votes from happening, maybe because they don’t think they can win them if it’s just straight up or down.

Raman: I think one thing to look at is kind of how we see some of these similar tactics in the same way that we saw with Medicaid. When Medicaid expansion started winning on different ballots, there were states that tried to put in measures to kind of tamp that down, saying, “You need a higher threshold,” and maybe that doesn’t pass, but still putting in different tactics to reduce the likelihood of that passing. I think that’s kind of what we’ve been seeing here, whether or not it’s Ohio trying to change its threshold, or we’ve had states say that even if something passed, let’s try to tear that back so that it doesn’t actually get implemented, or ahead of the ones for next year, let us find tactics to reduce the likelihood they’ll get the signatures to be on the ballot or reduce the likelihood of it passing by changing the language or pushing for challenging the language.

So there’s kind of what we saw right after the Dobbs decision, which was just a very “throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks,” just kind of ramp up things and see what will work, given that the last — all of the elections that we’ve had post-Dobbs have been in the favor of abortion rights. Even when we’ve tried to pass an anti-abortion measure, it’s not passed at the ballot. In the stories that you mentioned, there was another quote that stuck out to me, where they’d also mentioned that maybe this should not be subject to majority vote, I think in the Politico piece as well. So I think that’s something that is interesting that I haven’t really seen vocalized before, that this should be done in a different manner rather than this is how the majority of people feel one way or the other.

Rovner: Yeah, it felt so ironic because when in the Dobbs decision, Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote, “Well, now we’re turning this back to the states to be decided by their voters.” Well, here are their voters deciding, and it turns out the anti-abortion side don’t like the way the voters are voting, so they’re going to try to not have the voters vote, basically. We will see how this one all plays out. The other continuing story this year is women being prosecuted basically for bad pregnancy outcomes. Last week we talked about the case of Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who was sent home from a hospital emergency room twice, had a miscarriage, and this week had formal charges filed against her for, quote, “abusing a corpse.” This case hasn’t gotten nearly the attention of the case of Kate Cox, the Texas woman whose fetus was diagnosed with fatal defects and who filed suit to be allowed to have an abortion.

She eventually had to go to another state, and that was even before the permission that had been granted by a lower-court judge was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court. It may be at least in part because Brittany Watts is black, or that she didn’t put herself out in public the way Kate Cox did, but this is a way that prosecutors can punish women even in states where abortion remains legal. Remember Ohio voted twice this year to keep abortion legal, and this wasn’t even an abortion; it was a miscarriage. The medical examiner determined that the fetus was already dead when it passed. What are the prosecutors trying to do here? We talk about chilling effects. This is kind of the ultimate chilling effect, right?

Raman: It really is, because here we have someone that was not, as you said, seeking an abortion. She miscarried, and I think that she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant, and then they had the 21-week cutoff. So it gets sent into really murky waters here because I’m not sure what they’re going for, kind of picking this case to prosecute and go with. We’ve had this happen before where people have self-managed or miscarried, and then they’ve ended up being prosecuted. But at this point, I’m not sure why they’re making a case out of this particular woman, kind of dragging this into the debate.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a famous case in Indiana — 2013, may have been even before that — a pregnant woman who tried to kill herself and failed to kill herself, but did kill her fetus, and she was put in jail for several years. There have been, at least there was sort of the question there, were you trying to self-abort at that point? But there was nothing here. This was a woman with a wanted pregnancy whose pregnancy ended via natural circumstances, which happens, I think we’ve discovered now, a lot more than people realize.

I think people don’t talk about unhappy pregnancy outcomes, so people don’t realize how common they actually are. But I wonder — and I’ve been saying this all year — again, if women are fearing prosecution, even women who want babies, they may fear getting pregnant. I’ve seen some stories about more permanent types of birth control happening because women don’t want to get pregnant, because they don’t want to end up in a place where their health is being risked or they’re trying to get health care they need and their doctor or they could be facing prison time.

Kenen: And in this case, she had gone to the hospital. It’s complicated. She went in and out of the hospital. She went to the ER; they sent her home. I think then once they sent her home another time, she left against medical advice, but she wasn’t trying to get an abortion. She was having pregnancy complications. It’s documented. She was in and out of medical care. Pregnancies can fail, and early, the first trimester, it’s a very high rate. It’s less common later on, but it still happens. There are times when an early miscarriage, you might not even know that it’s a miscarriage. It’s early. You don’t know what’s even going on with your own body, or you’re not certain. So she didn’t know what to do at home when she did miscarry. It seems very punitive. Did she behave in an absolutely ideal, textbook-perfect, the way you wish she might have? But she did what she could do at the time.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to know what to do. Well, we will watch this case, I think, even though it’s not, as I say, it’s not getting quite the attention of some of the other cases. Our final this week in health information of 2023 goes to an ad that came to my email from the All Family Pharmacy in Boca Raton, Florida. The headline is “Miracle Drug Ivermectin for Covid-19 Could Save Lives,” and it claims that, quote, “a growing body of evidence from dozens of studies worldwide demonstrates ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and aid in the recovery from covid-19.”

That sounded not quite right to me, so I looked up some of the studies that they cited and found that most had been thoroughly debunked, that ivermectin is not really good treatment for covid-19. I even found one study from an open-access journal that had to publish a correction, noting that two of its authors were paid consultants to ivermectin manufacturers, though they had failed to disclose that conflict. Meanwhile, if you don’t want ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which the All Family Pharmacy also sells, they will also sell you semaglutide, which is the scientific name of the hard-to-get weight loss drug Ozempic. And they say their price even includes a doctor consult. I will post the links in the show notes. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Jordan Rau about his long-term care financing series. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Jordan Rau. I asked Jordan to join us to talk about his latest project, “Dying Broke,” done in partnership with The New York Times. It’s about the growing expense of long-term care and the declining ability of Americans to pay for it. Jordan, welcome to “What the Health?”

Jordan Rau: Glad to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So I want you to start with the 30-second elevator pitch about what you found working on this, for two years?

Rau: Just about. The big-picture view is that when you’re elderly, if you need long-term care, by which we’re talking about nonmedical things, like personal aides, if you need help in your daily activities going to the bathroom or eating or such, or if you have a cognitive impairment like dementia, it’s exceedingly expensive, except if you are destitute. The private market solutions, which are long-term care insurance, really don’t work, and most people don’t hold it. The government solution, which is Medicaid, is only available to you once you’ve exhausted just about all of your assets and have very low income. And that’s led the vast majority of people out on their own financially to either rely on themselves or their family or other people to take up the burden. And that burden is significant for the children of older people.

Rovner: So it’s not just nursing home care that costs more than all but the richest can afford; assisted living and home care, which people assume are going to be a lot cheaper and that maybe their retirement savings will cover — they’re also increasingly out of reach. Why has the price of long-term care gone up so much faster than Americans’ retirement savings?

Rau: All of medical inflation has gone up enormously, but I think a lot of it is that there’s so little regulation on prices. There’s frankly no regulation on prices of assisted living, and you don’t have a large payer that can control prices. That’s one of the good things about Medicare, is that they set their own prices and that’s helped keep prices down. That’s why it’s less expensive for Medicare to send someone to a nursing home than for someone to pay out-of-pocket. But there’s none of that. So the prices have just gone where they’ve gone, and now you have a scarcity of workers as well. So that’s driving up wages.

Rovner: People who’ve been socking away money and thinking they’re going to be able to pay for this themselves get kind of a rude awakening when they need, and it’s not — as you say, it’s not even medical long-term care; it’s just help with activities of daily living.

Rau: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think one of the problems is that people assume they have the best-case scenario when they’re envisioning their retirement. They’re going to be off golfing, they’re going to be playing around with their grandkids, they’re going to be taking trips. The fact is, you’re very likely — if you live well into your 80s and 90s, as many people do — to not be able to live independently anymore, to need help with at least a little bit of things, and in worst-case scenario everything. People just don’t expect that that’s going to happen.

Rovner: So why do so many Americans still not know that Medicare doesn’t pay for long-term care? I feel like I’ve been saying this since 1980-something.

Rau: I wonder how much of it would’ve been different if they had decided to name Medicaid something that isn’t so close to Medicare. Maybe that would’ve helped, but realistically, everyone I think has a sense. Well, first of all, who’s paying attention to this stuff when you’re in your 30s and 40s, right? You’re not thinking about what’s going to happen to you in the 60s. And then I think that people just don’t expect that this is going to happen to them, and Medicare has a well-earned reputation as being pretty comprehensive. It doesn’t cover certain things, and there is a “donut hole” situation, so you’ve got to get supplemental. But people know that for the most part, it’s covered. And people don’t understand that long-term care, the nonmedical side, is — not just here, everywhere — it’s the backwater of health care. It’s not even considered health care in some ways.

So you just assume — I mean, I would assume, right, if Medicare is going to cover my heart transplant, why would I not think that it’s going to cover someone to come to my house a couple hours a day to help me with stuff or to put me in an assisted living facility if it covers nursing home care? It’s such a complicated, Byzantine system. You and I, we’ve been doing this probably combined, well, I don’t want to say how long, but it’s been a long time, and it’s hard for us to untangle exactly what is covered and what overlaps with what and what are the eligibility rules. So to expect a regular person, who isn’t paid to do this 50 hours a week, to know it is highly unrealistic.

Rovner: Yeah, and I was going to say the fact that Medicare actually has a home care benefit and it has a nursing home benefit; they’re just super limited. I think that sort of adds to the confusion too, doesn’t it?

Rau: Yeah. Well, even Medicare is confused about its home care benefit, right? There’s the whole Jimmo case and a whole debate about what you need to qualify for it.

Rovner: So listeners will know that long-term care and our country’s complete lack of a long-term care policy is a pet issue of mine and has been since I started writing about it in 1986. It isn’t like the government hasn’t tried to do something. There was the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988 that ended up getting repealed. There were efforts to subsidize private long-term care insurance in the 1990s that didn’t really go anywhere, and there was the CLASS [Community Living Assistance Services and Supports] Act that was briefly part of the Affordable Care Act when it passed in 2010, only to be abandoned as financially unfeasible. Why has this been such a hard issue to address from a policy point of view?

Rau: The one-word answer obviously is money. It’s incredibly expensive. So to have that type of lift, it would be to expand either Medicaid or Medicare or to create a new program; would be inordinately expensive. But beyond that, I think basically, to do this, you either have to tag on something to one of those existing programs, which is a major expansion, or you have to have a mandatory insurance program. It could be a public one; it can be a private one. I think that it’s hard because it’s not universal. Auto insurance — everybody drives, right? So if you say, OK, you all know you’re going to drive, and people know like, Oh, I may get into an accident. So then you have a functioning insurance market.

Health insurance, sort of the same thing. Everyone knows that they’re going to need health insurance maybe next year. So that’s an easier sell. Even that, right, with the Affordable Care Act — that passed by just one vote. That was a heavy lift. So here you’re saying, here’s something that you may need but you very well may never tap. By the way, we want you to pay for it now or buy into it now, and it’s not relevant for your life until 30 years. I just think that’s a hard sell politically to the population, to the political system. It’s a hard sell.

Rovner: So if there was just one message that you hope people take away after reading this exhaustive series, what do you think it should be?

Rau: Printing the series out and frame it and put it on your wall would be my main message. But I would say that this stuff is so unpredictable that you really have to have some flexibility in your expectations and planning, because you can’t plan to not get early-onset dementia. You can’t plan to need help. So I think that you need to — people obviously need to have as much of a cash cushion as they can, and they need to bone up on this before it’s a crisis, because by the time it’s a crisis — and this is a problem, right, with health insurance too. By the time you’ve got the emotional and health issues, to throw on top of it a bureaucratic sort of financial issue is just so hard for most people to juggle. So there isn’t an easy solution, but it is important for people to realize that this is as much of a risk as smashing your car into a telephone pole and that you cannot have one answer.

Your answer cannot be like, “Oh, well I’m just going to stay in my house, because you may not be able to stay in your house.” Or your answer can’t be, “Well, I’m going to go into a fancy assisted living facility with a great chandelier and great food,” because unless you save an inordinate amount of money, even if you go in there, you may not be able to afford to stay there. So it’s really a recognition that you can’t really concretely plan for this, but you may very well not be able to live independently if you are lucky enough to live into your eighth and ninth decade.

Rovner: Great. Jordan Rau, anything I didn’t ask?

Rau: Never. Never, Julie.

Rovner: Jordan Rau, thank you so much for joining us.

Rau: Great to see you.

Rovner: OK. We are back, and it’s time for our last extra credit segment of the year. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

Cohrs: Sure. The story I chose is in ProPublica. The headline is “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding If They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker at The Capitol Forum and David Armstrong and Doris Burke at ProPublica. I think this article very much fits into the larger theme we were talking about earlier about insurance denials. This was pretty shocking still to me, of these instances of doctors with big malpractice settlements that had been disciplined by medical boards failing up essentially and getting jobs. If they can’t practice anymore, then they’re getting jobs in insurance companies instead, deciding whether a much larger volume of patients get care. So I think it was just a fascinating, really well-done investigation. It sounded like it was really difficult to match up all the records with the lawsuits and the settlements, and there aren’t necessarily databases that exist of what doctors work for insurance companies. So it was just really well done and just a really important space that we’ll continue to talk about.

Kenen: That was a great piece. These doctors are making $300,000 to $400,000 a year, these people who failed up, as Rachel just put it. Yeah.

Rovner: Yeah. That’s the perfect phrase. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” and it’s from my colleague at Roll Call Lauren Clason. This story also illustrates a combination of themes from this year. It touches on some of the maternal health inequities, the racial inequities, and rural health inequities, and how politics kind of comes into all of that. Mississippi Black women die at a rate four times higher than white women, and the state also leads in infant mortality rates nationwide. At the same time, it’s also a nonexpansion state for Medicaid. So Lauren went to Mississippi to look at some of the community and state-led groups that are trying to reduce these inequities that are caused by the different racial, socioeconomic, and access factors that are happening at the same time that an increasing number of hospitals are closing in the state.

Rovner: Also another really good story. Joanne?

Kenen: The theme of the day is yearlong, or decades-long in some cases, but ongoing health stories that have dominated the year. Another one that we didn’t touch on today but clearly is an ongoing multiyear health crisis is gun violence, which is a public health problem as well as a criminal justice problem. The Trace did a fantastic end-of-year project by Justin Agrelo. It’s called “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words.” They worked with both people who had survived shootings as well as people who had lost family members to shootings, and they worked with them about how to write and tell stories.

These five stories are in these people’s own words, and it was partnered with a bunch of other Chicago-based publications. They’re very powerful. In the introduction, they wrote that the Chicago media has been really good about trying to cover every homicide but that these people end up being defined by their death, not everything else about their life. These essays, they didn’t just talk about grief, which is obviously a huge — grief and trauma — but also the lives, not just the deaths. It’s really, really worth spending some time with.

Rovner: Yeah, and we haven’t talked as much as we probably should have about gun violence, but we will put that on the list for 2024. My extra credit this week is from Business Insider. It’s called “I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby.” It’s by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner. It’s about an anti-abortion group that promised pregnant women financial support for their babies if they agreed not to get an abortion. But even though the women signed contracts, the group, called Let Them Live, did not provide the aid promised. Apparently they promised more money than they could raise in contributions. Now, I have heard of pregnancy crisis centers promising things like diapers and formula, but this group said it would help with groceries and rent and other significant expenses until it didn’t. Apparently the small print in the contract said the benefits could be reduced or stopped at any time. This was supposed to help answer the criticism that anti-abortion groups don’t actually care about the women, particularly after they give birth, except maybe promising things that you can’t deliver isn’t the best way to do that.

OK. That is our show for this week and for this year. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sandhya, where are you on social media these days?

Raman: I’m @SandhyaWrites on both X and Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X, @rachelcohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @joannekenen1 on Threads. I’m occasionally on X — or, as you all know, I’ve been calling it Y — @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in 2024. Until then, have a great holiday season, and be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

With other GOP presidential candidates following Donald Trump’s lead in calling for an end to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are jumping on an issue they think will favor them in the 2024 elections. The Biden administration almost immediately rolled out a controversial proposal that could dramatically decrease the price of drugs developed with federally funded research dollars. The drug industry and the business community at large are vehemently opposed to the proposal, but it is likely to be popular with voters.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case to decide whether the Sackler family should be able to shield billions of dollars taken from its bankrupt drug company, Purdue Pharma, from further lawsuits regarding the company’s highly addictive drug OxyContin.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The ACA may end up back on the proverbial chopping block if Trump is reelected. But as many in both parties know, it is unlikely to be a winning political strategy for Republicans. ACA enrollment numbers are high, as is the law’s popularity, and years after a failed effort during Trump’s presidency, Republicans still have not unified around a proposal to replace it.
• Democrats are eager to capitalize on the revival of “repeal and replace.” This week, the Biden administration announced plans to exercise so-called “march-in rights,” which it argues allow the government to seize certain patent-protected drugs whose prices have gotten too high and open them to price competition. The plan, once largely embraced by progressives, could give President Joe Biden another opportunity to claim his administration has proven more effective than Trump’s heading into the 2024 election.
• The Senate voted to approve more than 400 military promotions this week, effectively ending the 10-month blockade by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama over a Pentagon policy that helps service members travel to obtain abortions. At the state level, the Texas courts are considering cases over its exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, while in Ohio, a woman who miscarried after being sent home from the hospital is facing criminal charges.
• Meanwhile, the Supreme Court soon could rule on whether EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, requires doctors to perform abortions in emergencies. And justices are also considering whether to allow a settlement deal to move forward that does not hold the Sacker family accountable for the harm caused by opioids.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Pfizer of failing to end the covid-19 pandemic with its vaccine.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’ sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg,” about his investigation into hospitals suing their patients for unpaid medical bills.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Wisconsin State Journal’s “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs,” by David Wahlberg.  

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own,” by Madison Muller.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “New Abortion Restrictions Pose a Serious Threat to Fetal Surgery,” by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr. 

Rachana Pradhan: KFF Health News’ “Patients Expected Profemur Artificial Hips to Last. Then They Snapped in Half,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner, CBS News.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Bloomberg News’ “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way,” by Anna Edney and Riley Griffin.
• Ars Technica’s “Texas Sues Pfizer With COVID Anti-Fax Argument That Is Pure Stupid,” by Beth Mole.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health Law 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health LawEpisode Number: 325Published: Dec. 7, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Good morning, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dan Weissmann, host of our sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan’s been working on a very cool two-part episode about hospitals suing their patients that he will explain. But first, this week’s news. So now that former President [Donald] Trump has raised the possibility of revisiting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, all of the other Republican presidential wannabes are adding their two cents.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says that rather than repeal and replace the health law, he would “repeal and supersede,” whatever that means. Nikki Haley has been talking up her anti-ACA bona fides in New Hampshire, and the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Montana is calling for a return to full health care privatization, which would mean getting rid of not only the Affordable Care Act, but also Medicare and Medicaid.

But the Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, at least judging from this year’s still very brisk open enrollment signups. Alice, you wrote an entire story about how the ACA of 2023 is not the ACA of 2017, the last time Republicans took a serious run at it. How much harder would it be to repeal now?

Ollstein: It would be a lot harder. So, not only have a bunch of red and purple states expanded Medicaid since Republicans took their last swing at the law — meaning that a bunch more constituents in those states are getting coverage they weren’t getting before and might be upset if it was threatened by a repeal — but also just non-Medicaid enrollment is up as well, fueled in large part by all the new subsidies that were implemented over the last few years. And that’s true even in states that resisted expansions.

DeSantis’ Florida, for instance, has the highest exchange enrollment in the country. There’s just a lot more people with a lot more invested in maintaining the program. You have that higher enrollment, you have the higher popularity, and we still haven’t seen a real replacement or “supersede” plan, or whatever they want to call it. And folks I talk to on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers, even those that were pretty involved last time, do not think such a plan is coming.

Rovner: It did get asked about at the “last” Republican presidential primary debate last night, and there was an awful lot of hemming and hawing about greedy drug companies and greedy insurance companies, and I heard exactly nothing about any kind of plan. Has anybody else seen any sign of something that Republicans would actually do if they got rid of the Affordable Care Act?

Pradhan: No. There was a time, immediately after the ACA’s passage, that health care was a winning political issue for Republicans, right? It was multiple election cycles that they capitalized on Obamacare and used it to regain House majorities, Senate majorities, and the presidency eventually. But that has not been true for multiple years now. And I think they know that. I think establishment Republicans know that health care is not a winning issue for the party, which is why Democrats are so eager to capitalize on this reopening of ACA repeal, if you will.

Rovner: What a perfect segue, because I was going to say the Biden administration is wasting no time jumping back into health care with both feet, trying to capitalize on what it sees as a gigantic Republican misstep. Just this morning, they are rolling out new proposals aimed at further lowering prescription drug prices, and to highlight the fact that they’ve actually gotten somewhere in some lowering of prescription drug prices.

Now they would like to make it easier to use government “march-in rights,” which would let the government basically tell prescription drug companies, “You’re going to lower your price because we’re going to let other people compete against you, despite your patent.” They’re also doing, and I will use their words, a cross-government public inquiry into corporate greed in health care. Now, some of these things are super controversial. I mean, the march-in rights even before this was unveiled, we saw the drug industry complaining against. But they could also have a real impact if they did some of this, right? Anna, you’ve watched the drug price issue.

Edney: Yeah, I think they definitely could have an impact. This is one of those situations with the march-in rights where we don’t have any clue on where or how exactly, because we haven’t been told that this drug or this class of drugs are kind of what we’re aiming at at this point. It sounds like maybe there’s a little bit more of the plan to be baked, but I am sure there are a lot of progressives, particularly, who had pushed for this that, over the years, who are very excited to even see it mentioned and moving in some sort of way, which hasn’t really happened before.

And, clearly, the Biden administration wants to, like you said, capitalize on health care being part of the campaign. And they’ve done a lot on drug prices, at least a lot in the sense of what can be done. There’s negotiation in Medicare now for some drugs. They kept insulin for Medicare as well. So this is just another step they can say, “We’re doing something else,” and we’d have to see down the line exactly where they’d even plan to use it.

And, of course, as pharma always does, they said that this will hurt innovation and we won’t get any drugs. Not that things have been in place that long, but, clearly, we haven’t seen that so far.

Rovner: Yes, that is always their excuse. I feel like this is one of those times where it doesn’t even matter if any of these things get done, they’re putting them out there just to keep the debate going. This is obviously ground that the Biden campaign would love to campaign on — rather than talking about the economy that makes people mostly unhappy. I assume we’ll be seeing more of this.

Edney: Yeah. Your food prices and other things are very high right now. But if they can talk about getting drug prices lower, that’s a totally different thing that they can point to.

Ollstein: And it’s an easy way to draw the contrast. For people who might be apathetic and think, “Oh, it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election,” this is an area where the Biden administration can credibly claim, based on what Trump recently said, “This is what’s at stake. This is the difference between my opponent and me. The health care of millions is on the line,” which has been a winning message in past elections.

And what’s been really striking to me is that even talking to a bunch of conservatives now, even though they don’t like the Affordable Care Act, they even are starting to argue that full-scale repeal and replace — now that it’s the status quo — that’s not even a conservative proposal.

They’re saying that it’s more conservative to propose smaller changes that chip around the edges and create some alternatives, but mainly leave it in place, which I think is really interesting, because for so long the litmus test was: Are you for full repeal, root and branch? And we’re just not really hearing that much anymore — except from Trump!

Rovner: The difficulty from the beginning is that the basis of the ACA was a Republican proposal. I mean, they were defanged from the start. It’s been very hard for them to come up with a replacement. What it already is is what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Well, let us turn to the other big issue that Democrats hope will be this coming election year, and that’s abortion, where there was lots of news this week.

We will start with the fact that the 10-month blockade of military promotions by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is over. Well, mostly over. On Tuesday, the Senate approved by voice vote more than 400 promotions that Tuberville had held up, with only a few four-star nominees still in question. Tuberville’s protests had angered not just Senate Democrats and the Biden administration, who said it was threatening national security, but increasingly his own Senate Republican colleagues.

Tuberville said he was holding up the nominations to protest the Biden administration’s policy of allowing active-duty military members and their dependents to travel out of state for an abortion if they’re stationed where it’s illegal, like in, you know, Alabama. So Alice, what did Tuberville get in exchange for dropping his 10-month blockade?

Ollstein: So, not much. I mean, his aim was to force the Biden administration to change the policy, and that didn’t happen — the policy supporting folks in the military traveling if they’re based in a state where abortion is banned and they need an abortion, supporting the travel to another state, still not paying for the abortion itself, which is still banned. And so that was the policy Tuberville was trying to get overturned, and he did not get that. So he’s claiming that what he got was drawing attention to it, basically. So we’ll see if he tries to use this little bit of remaining leverage to do anything. It does not seem like much was accomplished through this means, although there is a lot of anxiety that this sets a precedent for the future, not just on abortion issues, but, really, could inspire any senator to try to do this and hold a bunch of nominees hostage for whatever policy purpose they want.

Rovner: I know. I mean, senators traditionally sit on nominees for Cabinet posts. And the FDA and the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t have a director for, like, three administrations because members were angry at the administration for something about Medicare and Medicaid. But I had never seen anybody hold up military promotions before. This was definitely something new. Rachana, you were going to add something?

Pradhan: Oh, I mean, I was just thinking on Alabama specifically. I mean, I don’t claim to know, even though there was rising anger in Sen. Tuberville’s own party about this move. I mean, I’m not saying I know that this is a factor or not, but in Alabama, regardless of what he tried to do, I think that the attorney general in Alabama has made it clear that he might try to prosecute organizations that help people travel out of state to get abortions.

And so, it’s not like this is only the last word when you’re even talking about military officers or people in the military. Even in his home state, you might see some greater activity on that anyway, which might make it easier for him to honestly, in a way, give it up because it’s not the only way that you could presumably prosecute organizations or people who tried to help others go out of state to access abortion.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s important to say that while he irritated a lot of people in Washington, he probably had a lot of support from people back home in Alabama, which he kept pointing out.

Ollstein: Right. And I saw national anti-abortion groups really cheering him on and urging their members to send him thank-you letters and such. And so definitely not just in his home state. There are conservatives who were backing this.

Rovner: Well, moving on to Texas, because there is always abortion news out of Texas, we have talked quite a bit about the lawsuit filed by women who experienced pregnancy complications and couldn’t get abortions. Well, now we have a separate emergency lawsuit from a woman named Kate Cox, who is currently seeking an abortion because of the threat to her health and life.

Both of these lawsuits aren’t trying to strike the Texas ban, just to clarify when a doctor can perform a medically needed abortion without possibly facing jail time or loss of their medical license. Alice, I know the hearing for Kate Cox is happening even now as we are taping. What’s the status of the other case? We’re waiting to hear from the Texas Supreme Court. Is that where it is?

Ollstein: Yeah. So oral arguments were the other day and a bunch of new plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit. So it’s expanded to a few dozen people now, mostly patients, but some doctors as well who are directly impacted by the law. There was some interesting back and forth in the oral arguments over standing.

And one of the things the state was hammering was that they don’t have standing to sue because they aren’t in this situation that this other woman is in today, where they’re actively pregnant, actively in crisis, and being actively prevented from accessing the health care that they need that their doctor recommends, which in some circumstances is an abortion. And so I think this is an interesting test of the state’s argument on that front.

Rovner: Also, the idea, I mean, that a woman who literally is in the throes of this crisis would step forward and have her name in public and it’s going to court in an emergency hearing today.

Ollstein: Right, as opposed to the other women who were harmed previously. By the time they are seeking relief in court, their pregnancy is already over and the damage has already been done, but they’re saying it’s a threat of a future pregnancy. It’s impacting their willingness to become pregnant again, knowing what could happen, what already happened. But the state was saying like, “Oh, but because you’re not actively in the moment, you shouldn’t have the right to sue.” And so now we’ll see what they say when someone is really in the throes of it.

Rovner: In the moment. Well, another troubling story this week comes from Warren, Ohio, where a woman who experienced a miscarriage is being charged with “abuse of a corpse” because she was sent home from the hospital after her water broke early and miscarried into her toilet, which is gross, but that’s how most miscarriages happen.

The medical examiner has since determined that the fetus was, in fact, born dead and was too premature to survive anyway. Yet the case seems to be going forward. Is this what we can expect to see in places like Ohio where abortion remains legal, but prosecutors want to find other ways to punish women?

Ollstein: I mean, I also think it’s an important reminder that people were criminalized for pregnancy loss while Roe [v. Wade] was still in place. I mean, it was rare, but it did happen. And there are groups tracking it. And so I think that it’s not a huge surprise that it could happen even more now, in this post-Roe era, even in states like Ohio that just voted overwhelmingly to maintain access to abortion.

Pradhan: Julie, do we know what hospital? Because when I was looking at the story, do we know what kind of hospital it was that sent this person away?

Rovner: No. The information is still pretty sketchy about this case, although we do know the prosecutor is sending it to a grand jury. We know that much. I mean, the case is going forward. And we do know that her water broke early and that she did visit, I believe, it was two hospitals, although I have not seen them named. I mean, there’s clearly more information to come about this case.

But yeah, Alice is right. I mean, I wrote about a case in Indiana that was in 2012 or 2013, it was a long time ago, about a woman who tried to kill herself and ended up only killing her fetus and ended up in jail for a year. I mean, was eventually released, but … it’s unusual but not unprecedented for women to be prosecuted, basically, for pregnancy loss.

Ollstein: Yeah, especially people who are struggling with substance abuse. That’s been a major area where that’s happened.

Pradhan: I would personally be very interested in knowing the hospitals that are a part of this and whether they are religiously affiliated, because there’s a standard of care in medicine for what happens if you have your water break before the fetus is viable and what’s supposed to happen versus what can happen.

Rovner: There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where it was a Catholic hospital. The woman, her water broke early. She was in a Catholic hospital, and they also sent her home. I’m trying to remember where she finally got care. But yeah, that has been an issue also over the years. Well, meanwhile, back here in Washington, the Supreme Court is likely to tell us shortly, I believe, whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA, requires doctors to perform abortions in life-threatening situations, as the Biden administration maintains.

Alice, this case is on what’s known as the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, meaning it has not been fully briefed and argued. It’s only asking if the court will overturn a lower court’s ruling that the federal law trumps the state’s ban. When are we expecting to hear something?

Ollstein: It could be after justices meet on Friday. Really, it could be whenever after that. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the shadow docket can be very unpredictable, and we could just get, at very odd times, major decisions that impact the whole country or just one state. And so, yes, I mean, this issue of abortion care and emergency circumstances is playing out in court in a couple different states, and the federal government is getting involved in some of those states.

And so I think this could be a big test. Unlike a lot of lawsuits going on right now, this is not seeking to strike down the state’s abortion ban entirely. It’s just trying to expand and clarify that people who are in the middle of a medical emergency shouldn’t be subject to the ban.

Rovner: It’s similar to what they’re fighting about in Texas, actually.

Ollstein: Yeah, exactly. And this is still playing out at the 9th Circuit, but they’re trying to leapfrog that and get the Supreme Court to weigh in the meantime.

Rovner: Yeah, and we shall see. All right, well, while we’re on the subject of “This Week in Court,” let us move on to the case that was argued in public at the Supreme Court this week about whether the Sackler family can keep much of its wealth while declaring bankruptcy for its drug company, Purdue Pharma, that’s been found liable for exacerbating, if not causing much of the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The case involves basically two bad choices: Let the Sacklers manipulate the federal bankruptcy code to shield billions of dollars from future lawsuits or further delay justice for millions of people injured by the company’s behavior. And the justices themselves seem pretty divided over which way to go. Anna, what’s at stake here? This is a lot, isn’t it?

Edney: Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting how it doesn’t exactly break down on ideological lines. The justices were — I don’t want to say all over the place, because that sounds disrespectful — but they had concerns on many different levels. And one is that the victims and their lawyers negotiated the settlement because for them it was the best way they felt that they could get compensation, and they didn’t feel that they could get it without letting the Sacklers off the hook, that the Sacklers basically would not sign the settlement agreement, and they were willing to go that route.

And the government is worried about using that and letting the Sacklers off the hook in this way and using this bankruptcy deal to be able to shield a lot of their money that they took out of the company, essentially, and have in their personal wealth now. And so that’s something that a lot of companies are, not a lot, but companies are looking to hope to use the sign of bankruptcy protection when it comes to big class-action lawsuits and harm to consumers.

And so I think that what the worry is is that that then becomes the precedent, that the ones at the very top will always get off because it’s easier to negotiate the settlement that way.

Rovner: We’ll obviously have to wait until — as this goes a few months — to see the decisions in this case, but it’s going to be interesting. I think everybody, including the justices, are unhappy with the set of facts here, but that’s why it was in front of the Supreme Court. So our final entry in “This Week in Court” is a twofer. It is also “This Week in Health Misinformation.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against Pfizer for allegedly violating Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act because its covid vaccine did not, in fact, end the covid epidemic. Quoting from the attorney general’s press release, “We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies.” It’s hard to even know where to start with this, except that, I guess, anyone can sue anyone for anything in Texas, right?

Edney: Yeah, that’s a very good point. The entire concept of it feels so weird. I mean, a vaccine doesn’t cure anything, right? That’s not the point of a vaccine. It’s not a drug. It is a vaccine that is supposed to prevent you from getting something, and not everybody took it. So that feels like the end of the story, but, clearly, the attorney general would prefer attention, I think, on this, and to continue to sow doubt in vaccines and the government and the Food and Drug Administration seems to be maybe more of the point here.

Rovner: I noticed he’s only suing for, I think, it’s $10 million, which is frankly not a ton of money to a company as big as Pfizer. So one would assume that he’s doing this more for the publicity than for the actual possibility of getting something.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think Pfizer’s CEO’s annual salary is more than the damages that are being sought in this case. So it’s really not very much money at all. I mean, more broadly speaking, I mean, Texas, Florida, I think you see especially post-public-health-emergency-covid times, the medical freedom movement has really taken root in a lot of these places.

And I think that it just seems like this is adding onto that, where doctors say they should be able to give ivermectin to covid patients and it helped them and not be at risk of losing their license. And that’s really kind of an anti-vaccine sentiment. Obviously, it’s very alive and well.

Rovner: We are post-belief-in-scientific-expertise.

Edney: Well, I was going to say, I appreciated The Texas Tribune’s story on this because they called out every time in this lawsuit that he was twisting the truth or just completely not telling the truth at all in the sense that he said that more people who took the vaccine died, and that’s clearly not the case. And so I appreciated that they were trying to call him out every time that he said something that wasn’t true, but was just completely willing to put that out in the public sphere as if it was.

Rovner: There was also a great story on Ars Technica, which is a scientific website, about how the lawsuit completely misrepresents the use of statistics, just got it completely backwards. We’ll post a link to that one too. Well, while we are talking about drug companies, let’s talk about some drugs that really may not be what companies say they are.

Anna, you have a new story up this week about the Pentagon’s effort to ensure that generic drugs are actually copies of the drugs they’re supposed to be. That effort’s running into a roadblock. Tell us a little about that.

Edney: Yeah, thanks for letting me talk about this one. It’s “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way.” So the FDA is the roadblock to trying to figure out whether the drugs, particularly that the military and their family members are taking, work well and don’t have side effects that could be extremely harmful. So what’s going on here is that the Defense Department and others, the White House even, has grown skeptical of the FDA’s ability to police generic drugs, largely that are made overseas.

We did some analysis and we found that it was actually 2019 was the first time that generic drug-making facilities in India surpassed the number of those in the U.S. So we are making more, not just active ingredients, but finished products over in India. And the FDA just doesn’t have a good line into India. They don’t do many unannounced inspections. They usually have to tell the company they’re coming weeks in advance. And what we found is when the Defense Department started looking into this, they partnered with a lab to test some of these drugs.

They got some early results. Those results were concerning, as far as the drug might not work, and also could cause kidney failure, seizures. And even despite this, they’ve been facing the FDA around every corner trying to stop them and trying to get them not to test drugs. They say it’s a waste of money, when, in fact, Kaiser Permanente has been doing this for its 12.7 million members for several years.

And it just seems like something is going on at the FDA and that they don’t want people to have any questions about generic drugs. They really just want everyone to accept that they’re always exactly the same, and they even derail the White House effort to try to look into this more as well. But the Pentagon said, “Thank you very much, FDA, but we’re going forward with this.”

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, I could see that the FDA would be concerned about … they’re supposed to be the last word on these things. But, as you point out and as much of your reporting has pointed out over the last couple of years, the FDA has not been able to keep up with really making sure that these drugs are what they say they are.

Edney: One thing I learned that was interesting, and this is that in Europe, actually, there’s a network of 70 labs that do this kind of testing before drugs reach patients and after they reach patients. So it’s not a totally unusual thing. And for some reason, the FDA does not want that to happen.

Rovner: Well, finally on the drug beat this week, CVS announced earlier that it would overhaul its drug pricing to better reflect how much it pays for the drugs, all of which sounds great, but the fact is that how much CVS pays for the drugs doesn’t have all that much effect on how much we end up paying CVS for those same drugs, right? They’re just changing how they get the drugs from the manufacturers, not necessarily how they price it for the customers.

Pradhan: I think my main question would be, what does that mean for a patient’s out-of-pocket cost for prescriptions? I don’t know how much of this has to do with … for CVS as the pharmacy, but we have CVS Caremark, which is a major PBM, and how this affects the pricing models there. And PBMs, of course, have been under scrutiny in Congress. And there’s outside pressure too, right? The story that you highlighted, Julie, talks about Mark Cuban’s affordable-drug effort. And so, yeah, I don’t know. I mean, I think it sounds good until maybe we see some more details, right?

Rovner: I saw one story that said, “This could really help lower drug prices for consumers,” and one that said, “This could actually raise drug prices for consumers.” So I’m assuming that this is another one where we’re going to have to wait and see the details of. All right, well, that is this week’s news.

Now we will play my interview with Dan Weissmann of the “Arm and a Leg” podcast, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’s sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan has a cool two-part story on hospitals suing patients for overdue bills that he’s here to tell us about. Dan, welcome back.

Dan Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So over the past few years, there have been a lot of stories about hospitals suing former patients, including a big investigation by KFF Health News. But you came at this from kind of a different perspective. Tell us what you were trying to find out.

Weissmann: We were trying to figure out why hospitals file lawsuits in bulk. Investigative reporters like Jay Hancock at KFF [Health News] have documented this practice, and one of the things that they note frequently is how little money hospitals get from these lawsuits. Jay Hancock compared the amount that VCU [Health] was seeking from patients and compared it to that hospital system’s annual surplus, their profit margin, and it looked tiny. And other studies document essentially the same thing. So why do they do it?

And we got a clue from a big report done by National Nurses United in Maryland, which, in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting compared to the million-dollar salaries they were paying executives in this case, also noted that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits. Just five attorneys filed two-thirds of the 145,000 lawsuits they documented across 10 years, and just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. So we were like, huh, maybe that’s a clue. Maybe we found somebody who is getting something out of this. We should find out more.

Rovner: So you keep saying “we” — you had some help working on this. Tell us about your partners.

Weissmann: Oh my God, we were so, so lucky. We work with The Baltimore Banner, which is a new daily news outlet in Baltimore, new nonprofit news outlet in Baltimore, that specializes in data reporting. Their data editor, Ryan Little, pulled untold numbers of cases, hundreds of thousands of cases, from the Maryland courts’ website and analyzed them to an inch of their life and taught us more than I could ever have imagined.

And Scripps News also came in as a partner and one of their data journalists, Rosie Cima, pulled untold numbers of records from the Wisconsin court system and worked to analyze data that we also got from a commercial firm that has a cache of data that has more detail than what we could pull off the website. It was a heroic effort by those folks.

Rovner: So what did you find? Not what you were expecting, right?

Weissmann: No. While Rosie and Ryan were especially gathering all this data and figuring out what to do with it, I was out talking to a lot of people. And what I found out is that in the main, it appears that frequently when these lawsuits happen and when hospitals file lawsuits in general, they’re not being approached by attorneys. They’re working with collection agencies. And most hospitals do work with a collection agency, and it’s essentially like, I put it like, you get a menu, oh, I’m having a hamburger, I’m going to pursue people for bills.

Like, OK, do you want onions? Do you want mustard? Do you want relish? What do you want on it? And in this case, it’s like, how hard do you want us to go after people? Do you want us to hit their credit reports — if you still can do that, because the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] has been making regulations about that — but do you want us to do that? How often can we call them? And do you want us to file lawsuits if we don’t get results? And so that is essentially in consultation with the hospital’s revenue department and the collection agency, and it’s a strategic decision between them.

That was what we found out through talking to people. What Rosie and Ryan turned up, and the data we had from the folks in New York backed up, is that, surprisingly, in the three states that we looked at, there’s just so much less of this activity than we had expected to find. In Maryland, Ryan sent me a series of emails, the first saying, like, “I’m not actually seeing any this year. That’s got to be wrong. They must be hiding them somewhere. I’m going to go investigate.” And a week later he was like, “I think I found them, and then we’ll go run some more numbers.”

And then a week later, after going to the courthouse and looking at everything you could find, he was like, “No, actually Maryland hospitals just do not seem to be suing anybody this year.” And we had expected there to be fewer lawsuits, but zero was a surprise to everybody. In New York, we appear to have found that two of those three law firms handling all those cases are no longer handling medical bill cases. And in Wisconsin, final numbers are still being crunched. Our second part will have all those numbers.

The Banner is coming out with their numbers this week. But Scripps News and us are still crunching numbers in Wisconsin. But what was the biggest shocker was, I can just tell you, there were so many fewer lawsuits than we had expected, and many of the most active plaintiffs had either cut the practice entirely, like filing zero lawsuits or filing hardly any. One of the things that a lot of these reports that look at across a state, like in New York and the Maryland report, note, and that we found in Wisconsin too, is that most hospitals don’t do this.

Noam Levey at KFF [Health News] found that many hospitals have policies that say, “We might file a lawsuit,” and some larger number of hospitals file some lawsuits. But in all these cases where you’re seeing tons of lawsuits filed, the phenomenon of suing people in bulk is actually not business as usual for most hospitals. That is driven by a relatively small group of players. There was a study in North Carolina by the state treasurers, obviously and Duke University, that found 95% of all the lawsuits were filed by just a few institutions.

The New York people found this. We’ve seen it in Wisconsin. So I mean, it’s another very interesting question when you’re looking at why does this happen. It’s like it’s not something that most institutions do. And again, in Wisconsin, we found that most of the players that had been the most active had basically stopped.

Rovner: Do we know why? Is it just all of the attention that we’ve seen to this issue?

Weissmann: Probably the answer is we don’t know why. Our colleagues at The Banner called every hospital in Maryland and were not told very much. We emailed all the hospitals in Wisconsin that we could that we had seen dramatically decrease, and nobody came to the phone. So we don’t really know.

But it does seem like, certainly in Maryland and New York, there were these huge campaigns that got tons of publicity and got laws changed, got laws passed. And there has been attention. The reports that Bobby Peterson put out in Wisconsin got attention locally. Sarah Kliff of The New York Times, who’s been writing about these kinds of lawsuits, has written multiple times about hospitals in Wisconsin. So it seems like a good first guess, but it’s a guess. Yeah.

Rovner: Well, one thing that I was interested that you did turn up, as you pointed out at the top, hospitals don’t get very much money from doing this. You’re basically suing people for money that they don’t have. So you did find other ways that hospitals could get reimbursed. I mean, they are losing a lot of money from people who can’t pay, even people with insurance, who can’t pay their multi-thousand-dollar deductible. So what could they be doing instead?

Weissmann: They could be doing a better job of evaluating people’s ability to pay upfront. The majority of hospitals in the United States are obligated by the Affordable Care Act to have charity care policies, financial assistance policies, in which they spell out, if you make less than a certain amount of money, it’s a multiple of the federal poverty level that they choose, we’ll forgive some or all of your bill. And, frequently, that number is as much as four times the federal poverty level. They might knock 75% off your bill, which is a huge help.

And as a guy that I met noted, using data from KFF, 58% of Americans make less than 75% of the federal poverty level. That is a lot of people. And so if you’re chasing someone for a medical bill, they might very well have been someone you could have extended financial assistance to. This guy, his name is Nick McLaughlin, he worked for 10 years for a medical bill collections agency. Someone in his family had a medical bill they were having a hard time paying, and he figured out that they qualified for charity care, but the application process, he noted, was really cumbersome, and even just figuring out how to apply was a big process. And so he thought, I know that chasing people for money they don’t have isn’t really the best business model and that we’re often chasing people for money they don’t have. What if we encourage hospitals to be more proactive about figuring out if someone should be getting charity care from them in the first place?

Because, as he said, every time you send someone a bill, you’re spending two bucks. And you’re not just sending one bill, you’re sending like three bills and a final notice. That all adds up, and you’re manning a call center. You’re spending money and you’re missing opportunities by not evaluating people. Because while you’re asking about their income, you might find out they’re eligible for Medicaid, and you can get paid by Medicaid rather than chasing them for money they don’t have.

And two, they might update their insurance information from you and you can get money from their insurance. You can extend financial assistance to somebody, as you said, who has a deductible they can’t pay, and they might actually come to you for care that you can unlock money from their insurance if they’re going to come to you because they’re not afraid of the bill.

I should absolutely say, while Nick McLaughlin is selling hospitals on the idea of adopting new software, which is a great idea, they should do that, they should be more proactive, an entity called Dollar For, a nonprofit organization out of the Pacific Northwest that’s been doing work all over the country, has been beating the drum about this and has a tool that anybody can use.

Essentially, go to their website, dollarfor.org, and type in where you were seen and an estimate of your income, and they will tell you, you’re likely to qualify for charity care at this hospital, because they have a database of every hospital’s policy. And if you need help applying, because some of these applications are burdensome, we’ll help you. So this exists, and everybody should know about it and everybody should tell everybody they know about it. I think the work they’re doing is absolutely heroic.

Rovner: Well, Dan Weissmann, thank you so much for joining us. We will post a link to Dan’s story in our show notes and on our podcast page.

Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: OK, we are back. And it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week?

Edney: Sure. This is from my colleague Madison Muller, “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own.” And I thought she just did such an amazing job with this story, talking to Mark Bryant, who helped start an organization, Gun Violence Archive, which is essentially the only place that is trying to tally every instance of gun violence.

And because of a lot of the restrictions that the NRA has helped get into government regulations and things, some of them which are more recently loosening, but because of those in the past, this is really the only way you could try to look up these statistics. And he’s just given the last decade of his life, with no breaks, trying to do this and his health is failing. And I thought it was just a really poignant look at somebody who has no skin in the game, but just wanted the right information out there.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously this is a big deal. Alice.

Ollstein: I did an op-ed that was published in Stat by a group of fetal medicine specialists who are writing about how their work is being compromised by state abortion bans right now. They were saying these are very risky, high-stakes procedures where they perform operations in utero, latent pregnancy usually, and it’s an attempt to save the pregnancy where there is a big risk. But with all of these, there are risks that it could end the pregnancy, and now they’re afraid of being prosecuted for that.

And they describe a bunch of challenging situations that, even without these bans are challenging, things where there’s twins and something to help one could harm the other twin, and this could all affect the health and life of the parent as well. And so they’re saying that they’re really in this whole new era and have to think about the legal risks, as well as the medical and bioethical ones that they already have to deal with.

Rovner: I’ve reported about this over the years, and I can tell you that these are always really wrenching family decisions about trying to desperately save a pregnancy by doing this extraordinarily difficult and delicate kind of procedure. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story from our colleague Brett Kelman, who worked on this investigation with CBS News. It is about a type of artificial hip known as Profemur that literally were snapping in half in patients’ bodies. I told Brett earlier this week that I was cringing at every line that I read. So if folks want to get a really, frankly, pretty gruesome, awful story about how people around the country have received these artificial hips, and the fact that they broke inside their bodies has really caused a lot of damage.

And, frankly, I know we talked about the FDA, but also this story really sheds light on how the FDA has dropped the ball in not acting with more urgency. And had they done that, many of these injuries likely would’ve been avoided. So, I urge everyone to read it. It’s a great story.

Rovner: It is. I also flinched when I was reading a lot of it. Well, my story is from the Wisconsin State Journal by David Wahlberg, and it’s called “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs.” And while I have been covering Medicaid since the 1980s, and I never knew this even existed, it seems that a handful of states, Wisconsin among them, allows counties to go after the fathers of babies born on Medicaid, which is about half of all births — Medicaid’s about half of all births.

Not surprisingly, making moms choose between disclosing the father to whom she is not married to the state or losing Medicaid for her infant is not a great choice. And there’s lots of research to suggest that it can lead to bad birth outcomes, particularly in African American and Native American communities. I have long known that states can come after the estates of seniors who died after receiving Medicaid-paid nursing home or home care, but this one, at the other end of life, was a new one to me.

Now, I want to know how many other states are still doing this. And when I find out, I’ll report back.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Thanks, as always, to our tireless tech guru, Francis Ying, who’s back from vacation. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Anna?

Edney: @anna_edneyreports on Threads and @annaedney on X.

Rovner: Rachana.

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X, and @AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Former president and current 2024 Republican front-runner Donald Trump is aiming to put a repeal of the Affordable Care Act back on the political agenda, much to the delight of Democrats, who point to the health law’s growing popularity.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the all-Republican state Supreme Court this week took up a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen women who said their lives were endangered when they experienced pregnancy complications due to the vague wording of the state’s near-total abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA recently approved another promising weight loss drug, offering another option to meet the huge demand for such drugs that promise notable health benefits. But Medicare and private insurers remain wary of paying the tab for these very expensive drugs.
• Speaking of expensive drugs, the courts are weighing in on the use of so-called copay accumulators offered by drug companies and others to reduce the cost of pricey pharmaceuticals for patients. The latest ruling called the federal government’s rules on the subject inconsistent and tied the use of copay accumulators to the availability of cheaper, generic alternatives.
• Congress will revisit government spending in January, but that isn’t soon enough to address the end-of-the-year policy changes for some health programs, such as pending cuts to Medicare payments for doctors.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a guide by the staff of Stat to help lay people decipher whether clinical study results truly represent a “breakthrough” or not.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a woman who visited a hospital lab for basic prenatal tests and ended up owing almost $2,400. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get,” by Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, and Samantha Liss.

Joanne Kenen: KFF Health News’ “She Once Advised the President on Aging Issues. Now, She’s Battling Serious Disability and Depression,” by Judith Graham.  

Victoria Knight: Business Insider’s “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God,” by Lauren Vespoli.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: ProPublica’s “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It,” by Maya Miller and Robin Fields.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Progressive and Anti-Abortion? New Group Plays Fast and Loose to Make Points,” by Darius Tahir.
• ProPublica’s “Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t,” by Kavitha Surana.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on Agenda

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on AgendaEpisode Number: 324Published: Nov. 30, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Rachana Pradhan about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient fell into an all-too-common trap of using a lab suggested by her doctor’s office for routine bloodwork without realizing she might be left on the hook for thousands of dollars. But first, this week’s news — and last week’s, too, because we were off.

Because nothing is ever gone for good, the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is back in the news, and it’s coming primarily from the likely Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Just to remind you, in case you’ve forgotten, Trump, during his presidency, even in the two years that Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, was unable to engineer a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, nor did his administration even manage to unveil an alternative. So what possible reason could he have for thinking that this is going to help him politically now?

Knight: My takeaway is that I think it’s a personal grudge that former President Trump still has, that he failed at this. And I think, when you talk to people, he’s still mad that Sen. John McCain did his famous thumbs-down when the rest of the Republican Party was on board. So I’m not sure that there is much political strategy besides wanting to just make it happen finally, because upset it didn’t happen.

Rovner: Is this part of his revenge tour?

Knight: I mean, I think somewhat. Because if you ask House Freedom Caucus people, they will say, “Yeah, we should repeal it.” But if you ask some more moderate Republican members, they’re like, “We’ve already been through that. We don’t want to do it again.” So I don’t think the Republican Party on the Hill has an appetite to do that, even if Congress goes to Republicans in both chambers.

Kenen: Trump never came up with a health plan and repeal died in the Senate, but remember, it was a struggle to even get anything through the House, and what the House Republicans finally voted for, they didn’t even like. So I don’t know if you call this a revenge tour, but it’s checking a box. But I think it’s important to remember that if you look closely at what Republican policies are, they don’t call it repeal, they don’t say, “We are going to repeal it.” That didn’t go so well for them, and it probably cost them an election.

But they still do have a lot of policy ideas that would water down or de facto repeal many key provisions of Obamacare. So they haven’t tried to go that route, and I’m not sure they would ever try a full-out repeal, but there are lots of other things they could do, some of which would have technical names: community rating and things like that, that voters might not quite understand what they were doing, that could really undermine the protections of Obamacare.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was going to say the Republican Party, in general, this has been the running joke since they started “repeal and replace” in 2010, is that they haven’t had the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” at all. Trump kept saying he was going to have a great plan, it’s coming in two weeks, and, of course, now he’s saying he’s going to have a great plan. We’ve never seen this great plan because the Republicans have never been able to agree on what should come next. Aside from, as Joanne says, tinkering around with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Some of that tinkering would be significant.

Rovner: It could be.

Kenen: I mean there are things that they could tinker that wouldn’t be called repeal, but would actually really make the ACA not work very well.

Rovner: But most of the things that the Republicans wanted to do to the ACA have already been done, like repealing the individual mandate, getting rid of a lot of the industry-specific taxes that they didn’t like.

Kenen: Right. So they ended up getting rid of the spinach and they end up with the stuff that even Republicans, they might not say they like the ACA, but they’re being protected by it. And the individual mandate was the single-most unpopular, contentious part of the law and even a lot of Democrats didn’t like it. And so that target of the animus is gone. So by killing part of it, they also made it harder to do things in the future. They could do damage, though.

Rovner: Yeah. Or they could take on entitlements which, of course, is where the real money is. But we’ll get to that in a minute. Sarah, we have not seen you in a while, so we need to catch up on a bunch of things that are FDA-related. First, a couple of payment items since you were last here. The FDA has, as expected, approved a weight loss version of the diabetes drug Mounjaro that appears to be even more effective than the weight loss version of Ozempic. But insurers are still very reluctant to pay for these drugs, which are not only very expensive, they appear to need to be consumed very long-term, if not forever. Medicare has so far resisted calls to cover the drugs, despite some pressure from members of Congress, but that might be about to change.

Karlin-Smith: I think Medicare is getting a lot of pressure. They’re going to have to probably re-look at it at some point. What I found interesting is recently CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] regulates other types of health plans as well, and in the ACA space they seem to be pushing for coverage of these obesity drugs. And I think they’re thinking around that. They note that the non-coverage allowance for these ACA plans was based on … they were following what Medicare was doing and there’s some acknowledgment that maybe the non-Medicare population is different from the Medicare population. But I think it’s also worth thinking about some of their other reasoning for coverage there, including that these drugs are different than some of the older weight loss drugs that provided more minimal weight loss, had worse side effects, and it came at a time when weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic issue. So if that ACA provision rule goes through, I think that does help the case for people pushing for coverage in Medicare Part D of these drugs.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this seems to be one of these “between a rock and a hard place” … that the demand for these drugs is huge. The evidence suggests that they work very well and that they work not just to help people lose weight, but perhaps when they lose weight to be less likely to have heart attacks and strokes and all that other stuff that you don’t want people to have. On the other hand, at the moment, they are super expensive and would bankrupt insurance companies and Medicare.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, we’ve seen this before where people worry there’s a new class of expensive drugs that a lot of people seem like they will need and it’s going to bankrupt the country, and oftentimes that doesn’t happen even whether it is, in theory, more coverage to some extent. We saw that with hep C. There was a new class of cholesterol drugs that came out a few years ago that just haven’t taken off in the way people worried they would. Some of these obesity drugs, they do work really well, not everybody really tolerates them as well as you would think. So there’s questions about whether that demand is really there. Sen. [Bill] Cassidy [R-La.] has made some interesting points about “Is there a way to use these drugs initially for people and then come up with something more for weight maintenance that wouldn’t be as expensive?”

Rovner: We should point out that Sen. Cassidy is a medical doctor.

Karlin-Smith: But I think the pressure is coming on the government. Recently, I got to hear the head of OPM [Office of Personnel Management], who deals with the insurance coverage for federal government employees, and they have a really permissible coverage of obesity drugs. Basically, they require all their health insurance plans to cover one of these GLP-1 drugs, and they have some really interesting language I’ve seen used by pharmaceutical companies to say, “Look, this part of the federal government has said obesity is a disease. It needs to be treated,” and so forth. So I don’t think the federal government is going to be able to use this argument of, “This is not a medical condition, and these are expensive, we’re not going to cover it.” But there’s definitely going to be tensions there in terms of costs.

Rovner: Well, definitely more to come here. Meanwhile, CMS is also looking at changing the rules, again, for some pharmacy copay assistance programs, which claim to assist patients but more often seem to enrich drug companies and payers. What is this one about? And can you explain it in English? Because I’m not sure I understand it.

Karlin-Smith: So most people, when you get a prescription for a drug, have some amount of copay, so your insurance company pays the bulk of the cost and you pay maybe $10, $20, $30 when you pick up your prescription. For really high-cost drugs, pharmaceutical companies and sometimes third-party charities often offer copay support, where they will actually pay your copay for you.

The criticism of these charities and pharma support is that it lets the companies keep the prices higher. Because once you take away the patient feeling the burden of the price, they can still keep that higher percentage that goes to your health plan and into your premiums that you don’t think about. And so health insurance companies have said, “OK, well we’re not going to actually count this coupon money towards your copay, your out-of-pocket max for the year, because you’re not actually paying it.”

So that doesn’t end up doing the patient much good in the end because, while you might get the drug for free the first part of the year, eventually you end up having to pay the money. The courts have weighed in, and the latest ruling was that the effect of it was essentially telling CMS, “You need to re-look at your rules. We don’t think your logic is consistent,” and they seem to potentially suggest that CMS should only allow copay accumulators if there’s a cheaper drug a patient could take.

So, basically, they’re saying it’s unfair to put this burden on patients and not let them benefit from the coupons if this is the only drug they can take. But if there’s a generic drug they should be taking, that’s the equivalent then, OK, insurance company, you can penalize them there. But interestingly, CMS has basically pushed back on the court ruling. They’re asking them for basically more information about what they’re exactly directing them to do and signaling that they want to keep their broader interpretation of the law.

It’s a tricky situation, I think, policy-wise, because there’s this tension of, yes, the drug prices are really high. The insurance companies have a point of how these coupons create these perverse incentives in the system, and, on the other hand, the person that gets stuck in the middle, the patient is not really the fair pawn in this game. And when talking about a similar topic with somebody recently, they brought up what happened with surprise billing and they made this parallel of we need to think about it as, OK, you big corporate entities need to figure out how to duke out this problem, but stop putting the patient in the middle because they’re the one that gets hurt. And that’s what happened in surprise billing. I’m not sure if there’s quite that solution of how you could do that in this pharmaceutical space though.

Rovner: I was just going to say that this sounds exactly like surprise billing, but for prescription drugs. Well, while we are talking about Capitol Hill, let’s turn to Capitol Hill, where the big news of the week is that House Republican conservatives, the so-called Freedom Caucus, have apparently agreed to abide by the deal they agreed to abide by earlier this year. At least that’s when it comes to the overall total for the annual spending bills. Then-Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy’s attempt to adhere to that deal is one of the things that led to his ouster. The conservatives had wanted to cut spending much more deeply than the deal that was cut, I think it was in May. Although I feel compelled to add: Cutting the appropriations bills, which is what we’re talking about here, doesn’t really do very much to help the federal budget deficit. Most of the money that the federal government spends doesn’t go through the appropriations process. It’s automatic, like Social Security and Medicare.

But I digress. Victoria, what prompted the Freedom Caucus to change their minds and what does that portend for actually getting some of these spending bills done before the next cutoff deadline, which is mid-January?

Knight: I mean, I think it’s the Freedom Caucus just facing reality and that it’s really hard to do budget cuts, and a lot of these bills, the cuts are very deep. For the Labor-HHS bill, which is the bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, the cut is 18%. To the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], 12% to the department itself. Those are really big cuts. And all the bills, you look at them, they all have really deep cuts.

The agriculture bill has deep cuts to the Department of Agriculture that some moderate Republicans don’t like. So all of the bills have these issues, and so I think they’re realizing it is just not possible to get what they want. Some of them didn’t vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the deal that former Speaker McCarthy did with the debt limit that set funding levels. So they’re not necessarily going back on something that they voted for.

Rovner: They’re going back on something that the House voted for.

Knight: Yeah. So yeah, I think they’re just realizing the appropriations process, it’s difficult to make these deep spending cuts. I’ve also heard rumors that there might still be a big omnibus spending bill in January. Despite all this talk of doing the individual appropriations bills, I’ve heard that it may end up, despite all the efforts of the Republican Caucus, it may end where they have to just do a big bill because this is the easiest thing to do and then move on to the rest of the business of Congress for the next year. So we’ll see if that happens. But I have heard some rumors already swirling around that.

Rovner: I mean the idea they have now “agreed” to a spending limit that should have been done in the budget in April, which would’ve given them several months to work on the appropriations bills coming in under that level. And, of course, now we’re almost three months into the new fiscal year, so I mean they’re going to be late starting next year unless they resolve this pretty soon. But in the meantime, one thing that won’t happen is that we won’t get a big omnibus bill before Christmas because the deadline is now not until January, and that’s important for a bunch of health issues because we have a lot of policies that are going to end at the end of the year. Things like putting off cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, which a lot of people care about, including, obviously, all the doctors. Is there a chance that some of these “extender provisions” will find their way onto something else, maybe the defense authorization bill that I think they do want to finish before Christmas?

Knight: Yeah, I think that’s definitely possible. I’ve also heard they can retroactively do that, so even if they miss the deadline, it will probably be fixed. So it doesn’t seem like too big a worry,

Rovner: Although those doctor cuts, I mean, what happens is that CMS pens the claims, they don’t pay the claims until it’s been fixed retroactively. They have done it before, it’s a mess.

Kenen: And it’s bad for the doctors because they don’t get paid. It takes even longer to get paid because they’re put in a hold pile, which gets rather large.

Rovner: It does. Not that the defense bill doesn’t have its own issues around defense, but while we’re on the subject of defense, it looks like Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be ready to throw in the towel now on the more than 400 military promotions he’s been blocking to protest the Biden administration’s policy allowing members of active-duty military and their dependents to travel to other states for an abortion if it’s banned where they are stationed. This has been going on since February. My impression is that it’s his fellow Republicans who are getting worried about this.

Kenen: Yeah. They’re as fed up as the Democrats are now. Not 100% of them are, but there’s a number who’ve come out in public and basically told him to cut it out. And then there are others who aren’t saying it in public, but there are clearly signs that they’re not crazy about this either. But we keep hearing it’s about to break. We’ve been hearing for several weeks it’s about to be resolved, and until it’s resolved, it’s not resolved. So I think clearly there’s movement because the pressure has ramped up from his fellow Republicans.

Rovner: Well, to get really technical, I think that the Senate Rules Committee passed a resolution that could get around this whole thing-

Kenen: But they don’t really want to, I mean the Republicans would rather not confront him through a vote. They’d rather just stare him down and get him to pretend that he won and move on. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. Is it a formal action by the Senate or is there some negotiated way to move forward with at least a large number of these held-up nominations.

Rovner: It’s the George Santos-Bob Menendez health issue. In other words, they would like him to step down himself rather than have to vote to take it down, but they would definitely like him to back off.

Kenen: I mean, not confusing anybody but they’re not talking about expelling her from the Senate. They’re [inaudible] talking about “Cut this out and let these people get their promotions,” because some of them are very serious. These are major positions that are unfilled.

Rovner: Yes, I mean it’s backing up the entire military system because people can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go and the people who are going to take their place can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go, and it’s not great for the Department of Defense. All right, well, while we are on the subject of abortion, at least tangentially, the Texas Supreme Court this week heard that case filed by women who had serious pregnancy complications for which they were unable to get medical care because their doctors were afraid that Texas’ abortion ban would be used to take their medical licenses and/or put them in jail.

Kenen: For 99 years!

Rovner: Yeah, the Texas officials defending against the lawsuit say the women shouldn’t be suing the state. They should be suing their doctors. So what do we expect to happen here? This hearing isn’t even really on the merits. It’s just on whether the exceptions the lower court came up with will be allowed to take effect, which at the moment they’re not.

Kenen: The exception-by-exception policy, where things get written in, is problematic because it’s hard to write a law allowing every possible medical situation that could arise and then that would open it to all other litigation because people would disagree about is this close to death or not? So the plaintiffs want a broader, clearer exception where it’s up to the doctors to do what they think is correct for their patients’ health, all sorts of things can go wrong with people’s bodies.

It’s hard to legislate, which is OK and which isn’t. So the idea of suing your doctor, I mean, that’s just not going to go anywhere. I mean, the court is either going to clarify it or not clarify it. Either way, it’ll get appealed. These issues are not going away. There’s many, many, many documented cases of people not being able to get standard of care. Pregnancy complications are rare, but they’re serious and the state legislatures have been really resistant so far to broadening these exemptions.

Rovner: It’s not just Texas. ProPublica published an investigation this week that found that none of the dozen states with the strictest abortion bans broadened exceptions even after women and their doctors complained that they were being put at grave risk, as Joanne just pointed out. When we look at elections and polls, it feels like the abortion rights side very much has the upper hand, but the reverse seems to be the case in actual state legislatures. I mean, it looks like the anti-abortion forces who want as few exceptions as possible are still getting their way. At least that’s what ProPublica found.

Kenen: Right. One of the other points that the ProPublica piece made was many of these laws were trigger laws. They were written before Roe was toppled. They were written as just in case, if the Supreme Court lets us do this, we’ll do it. So they were symbolic and they were not necessarily written with a lot of medical input. And they were written by activists, not physicians or obstetricians.

And the resistance to changing them is coming from the same interest groups that want no abortions, who say it’s just not ever medically necessary or so rarely medically necessary, and it is medically necessary at times. I mean, there are people who, and this line saying, “Well, if you’re in trouble, you can’t have an abortion. But if you’re close to death you can,” that can happen in split seconds. You can be in trouble and then really be in real trouble. You can’t predict the course of an individual, and it’s tying the hands for physicians to do what needs to be done until it might be too late.

Knight: I think a lot of them don’t realize, until it starts happening, how many times it is sometimes medically necessary. It’s not even that a woman necessarily wants to get an abortion, it’s just something happens, and it’s safer for her to do that in order to save her life.

Karlin-Smith: And you’ve seen in some of these states, sometimes Republican women prominently coming out and pushing for this and trying to explain why it’s necessary. In some cases, they also have made the argument, too, that sometimes to preserve a woman’s fertility, these procedures are necessary given the current situations they face.

Kenen: There was a quote in that ProPublica story, and it’s not necessarily everybody on the anti-abortion rights side, but this individual was quoted as saying that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s life. So that’s a judgment that a politician or activist is making. Plus, if the mother dies, the fetus can die too. So it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not even choosing one. I mean, in many cases if the pregnant person dies, the fetus will die.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, I want to give a shout-out to a story by my KFF Health News colleague Darius Tahir, who, by the way, became a father this week. Congratulations, Darius. The story’s about a group called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising that purports to be both anti-abortion and progressively leftist and feminist. One of its goals appears to be to get courts to overturn the federal law that restricts protests in front of abortion clinics. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as FACE, is I think the only explicitly abortion rights legislation that became law in the entire 1990s, which makes you wonder if this group is really as leftist and feminist as it says it is, or if it’s just a front to try and go after this particular law.

Kenen: It sets limits of where people can be and tries to police it somewhat. But in Darius’ story, his reporting showed that they did, at least some of them, had ties to right-wing groups. So that they’re calling themselves leftist and progressive … it’s not so clear how accurate that is for everybody involved.

Rovner: Yeah, it was an interesting story that we will link to in the show notes. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” and it’s good news for a change. I chose a story from Stat News called “How to Spot When Drug Companies Spin Clinical Trial Results.” It’s actually an update of a 2020 guide that STAT did to interpret clinical trial results, and it’s basically a glossary to help understand company jargon and red flags, particularly in press releases, to help determine if that new medical “breakthrough” really is or not. It is really super helpful if you’re a layperson trying to make sense of this.

OK that is this week’s news, and I now will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Rachana Pradhan, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Always great to see you, Rachana.

Rachana Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s patient fell into what’s an all-too-common trap. She went to a lab for routine bloodwork suggested by her doctor without realizing she could be subjected to thousands of dollars in bills she’s expected to pay. Tell us who she is and how she managed to rack up such a big bill for things that should not have cost that much.

Pradhan: So our patient is Reesha Ahmed. She lives in Texas, just in a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and what happened to Reesha is she found out she was pregnant and she went to a doctor’s office that she had never gone to before for a standard prenatal checkup, and she also had health insurance. I want to underscore that that is an important detail in this story. So the nurse recommended that Reesha get routine blood tests just down the hall in a lab that was in the adjoining hospital. And it was routine. There was nothing unusual about the blood tests that Reesha received. So what she was advised to do is after her checkup, she was told, “Well, here’s the bloodwork you need, and just go down the hallway here, into the hospital,” to get her blood drawn.

Rovner: How convenient, they have their own lab.

Pradhan: Exactly. And Reesha did what she was told. She got bloodwork done. And then, soon after that, she started getting bills. And they first were small amounts, like there was a bill for $17, and she thought, “OK, well that’s not so bad.” Then she got a bill for over $300 and thought, “That’s unusual. Why would I get billed this?” Then came the huge one. It was over $2,000. In total, Reesha’s overall lab work bills were close to $2,400 for, again, standard bloodwork that every pregnant woman gets when they find out that they’re pregnant. And so she, needless to say, was shocked and immediately actually started trying to investigate herself as to how it was possible for her to get billed such astronomical amounts.

Rovner: And so what did she manage to find out?

Pradhan: She tried taking it up with the hospital and her insurance company. And she just got passed around over and over again. She appealed to her insurance. They denied her appeal saying that, “Well, this bloodwork was diagnostic and not preventive, so it was coded correctly based on the claim that was submitted to us,” and the hospital even sent her to collections for this bloodwork. Unfortunately for Reesha, this pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, and so it was particularly difficult. She was dealing with all the emotional, physical ramifications of that, and then on top of that, having to deal with this billing nightmare is just a lot for any one person to handle. It’s too much, honestly.

Rovner: So we, the experts in this, what did we discover about why she got billed so much?

Pradhan: You can get bloodwork at multiple places in our health system. You could get it maybe within a lab just in your doctor’s office. You can go to an outside lab, like an independent commercial one, to get bloodwork done and you can sometimes get labs within a hospital building. They may not look any different when you’re actually in there, but there’s a huge difference as to how much they will charge you.

Research has shown that if a patient is getting blood tests done, things that are relatively routine and just as a standalone service, hospital outpatient department labs charge much, much more. There’s research that we cite in the story about Reesha that … she lives in Texas … bloodwork in Texas, if it’s done in a hospital outpatient department is at least six times as expensive compared to if you get those same tests in a doctor’s office or in an independent commercial lab.

Rovner: To be clear, I would say it’s not just bloodwork. It’s any routine tests that you get in a hospital outpatient department.

Pradhan: That research, in particular, was looking at blood tests actually, in particular, just any lab work that you might get done. So the conclusion of that is really that there’s no meaningful quality difference. There’s really no difference at all when you get them in a doctor’s office versus a hospital or a lab, and yet the prices you pay will vary dramatically.

Rovner: Yeah, there should be a big sign on the door that says: “This may be more convenient, but if you go somewhere else, you might pay a lot less and so will your insurance.” What eventually happened with Reesha’s bill?

Pradhan: Well, eventually, the charges were waived and zeroed out and she was told that she would not have to pay anything and all the accounts would be zeroed out to nothing.

Rovner: Eventually, after we started asking questions?

Pradhan: Yes. It was a day after I had sent a litany of questions about her billing that they gave her a call and said, “You now won’t have to pay anything.” So it’s a big relief for her.

Rovner: Obviously this was not her fault. She did what was recommended by the nurse in her doctor’s office, but there are efforts to make this more transparent.

Pradhan: Yeah. I think in health care policy world, the issue that she experienced is a reflection of something called site-neutral payment, which essentially means if payment is site-neutral for a health care provider, it means that you get a service and regardless of where you get that service, there is no difference in the amount that you are paying. There are efforts in Congress and even in state legislatures to institute site-neutral pay for certain services.

Bloodwork is one that is not necessarily being targeted, at least in Congress. But I will say, I think one of the big takeaways about what patients can do is if they do get paperwork from your doctor’s office saying, “OK, you need to get some blood tests done,” you can always take that bloodwork request and get it done at an independent lab where the charges will be far, far less than in a hospital-based lab, to avoid these charges.

Rovner: Think of it like a prescription.

Pradhan: Exactly. It might not be as convenient in that moment. You might have to drive somewhere, you can’t just walk down a hallway and get your blood tests and labs done, but I think you will potentially avoid exorbitant costs, especially for bloodwork that is very standard and is not costly.

Rovner: Yet another cautionary tale. Rachana Pradhan, thank you very much.

Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

Rovner: OK. We are back and it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you offered up the first extra credit this week. Why don’t you go first?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a ProPublica piece by Maya Miller and Robin Fields, “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It.” And it tells the story of a Michigan man who had cancer, and the last resort treatment for him was CAR-T, which is a cellular therapy where they basically take some of your cells, reengineer them, and put them back into your body, and it is quite expensive and it can come with a lot of expensive side effects as well.

FDA considers it a drug, and Michigan state law requires cancer drugs be covered. The insurance company of this man, basically on a technicality, denied it, describing it as a gene therapy, and he did die before he was able to fully push this battle with the insurance company and get access to the treatment and so forth. But I think the piece raises these broader issues about [how] few states are able to proactively monitor whether insurance plans are properly implementing the laws around what is supposed to be covered and not covered.

Few people really have the knowledge or skill set, particularly when you’re dealing with devastating diseases like cancer, which are just taking all of your energy just to go through the treatment, to figure out how to fight the system. And it really demonstrates the huge power imbalances people face in getting health care, even if there are laws that, in theory, seem like they’re supposed to be protected.

I also thought there’s some really interesting statistics in the story about, yes, even though the price tag for these products are really expensive, that the health insurance company actually crunched the numbers and found that if they shifted the cost to premiums in their policyholders, it would lead to, like, 17 cents a month per premium. So I thought that was interesting, as well, because it gives you a sense of, again, where their motivation is coming from when you boil it down to how the costs actually add up.

Rovner: And we will, I promise, talk about the growing backlash against insurance company behavior next week. Victoria.

Knight: So my extra-credit article is a Business Insider story in which I’m quoted, but the title is “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God.” And it basically talks about the phenomenon of Celsius popping up around the Hill. So it’s an energy drink that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine. It tastes like sparkling water, it’s fruity, but it’s not like Monster or Red Bull. It tastes way better than them, which I think is partly why it’s become so popular.

But anyways, I’ve only been on the Hill reporting for about a year and in the past couple months it has really popped up everywhere. It’s all around in the different little stores within the Capitol complex, there’s machines devoted to it. So it talks about how that happened. And I personally drink almost one Celsius a day. I’m trying to be better about it, but the Hill is a hard place to work, and you’re running around all the time, and it just gets you as much caffeine as you need in a quick hit. But the FDA does recommend about 400 milligrams a day. So if you drink two, then you’re not going over the recommendation.

Rovner: Well, you can’t drink anything else with caffeine if you drink two.

Knight: That’s true. And I do drink coffee in the morning, but it has some funny quotes to our members of Congress and chiefs of staff and reporters about how we all rely on this energy drink to get through working on the Hill.

Rovner: I just loved this story because, forever, people wonder how these things happen in the middle of the night. It’s not the members, it’s the staff who are going 16 and 20 hours a day, and they’ve always had to rely on something. So, at least now, it’s something that tastes better.

Knight: It does taste better.

Rovner: That’s why it amused me, because it’s been ever thus that you cannot work the way Capitol Hill works without some artificial help, shall we say. Joanne.

Kenen: We used to just count how many pizza boxes were being delivered to know how long a night it was going to be. I guess now you count how many empty cans of Celsius.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: I personally ran more on sugar than caffeine.

Kenen: OK. This is a piece by Judy Graham of KFF Health News, and the headline is “A Life-Changing Injury Transformed an Expert’s View on Disability Services.” And it’s about a woman many of us know, actually Julie and I both know: Nora Super. I’ve known her for a long time. She’s an expert on aging. She ran one of the White House aging conferences. She worked at Milken for a long time. She worked at AARP for a while.

She’s in her late 50s now, and in midlife, she started having really severe episodes of depression, and she became very open about it, she became an advocate. Last summer, she had another episode and she couldn’t get an appointment for the treatment she needed quickly enough. And while she was waiting, which is the story of American health care right now, and while she was waiting for it, she did try to take her own life. She survived, but she now has no sensation from the waist down.

And her husband is a health economist, and I should disclose, my former boss at one point, I worked for and with Len for two years, Len Nichols. So this is a story about how she has now become an advocate for disability. And this is a couple with a lot of resources. I mean both knowledge, connections, and they’re not gazillionaires, but they have resources, and how hard it has been for them even with their resources and connections. And so now Nora who, when she’s well, she’s this effervescent force of nature, and this is how she is turning — her prognosis, it could get better, they don’t know yet — but clearly an extraordinarily difficult time. And she has now taken this opportunity to become not just an advocate for the aging and not just an advocate for people with severe depression, but now an advocate for people with severe disability.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s everything that’s wrong with the American health care system, and I will say that a lot of what I’ve learned about health policy over very many years came from both Len Nichols and Nora, his wife. So they do know a lot. And I think what shocked me about the story is just how expensive some of the things are that they need. And, again, this is a couple who should be well enough off to support themselves, but these are costs that basically nobody could or should have to bear.

Kenen: Even … it was just a lift to get her into their car, just that alone was $6,500. And there are many, many, many things like that. And then another thing that they pointed out in the article is that most physicians don’t have a way of getting somebody from a wheelchair onto the examining table other than having her 70-year-old husband hoist her. So that was one of the many small revelations in this story. Obviously, it’s heartbreaking because I know and like her, but it’s also another indictment of why we just don’t do things right.

Rovner: Yes. Where we are. Well, my story is yet another indictment of not doing things right. It’s by my colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, who you just heard, and Samantha Liss, and it’s called “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get.” And it’s just an infuriating story pointing out that everything we’ve talked about all year with state reviews of Medicaid eligibility, the endless waits on hold with call centers, lost applications, and other bureaucratic holdups, goes for more than just health insurance. The same overworked and under-resourced people who determine Medicaid eligibility are also the gatekeepers for other programs like food stamps and cash welfare assistance, and people who are eligible for those programs are also getting wrongly denied benefits.

Among the people quoted in the story was DeAnna Marchand of Missoula, Montana, who is trying to recertify herself and her grandson for both Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), but wasn’t sure what she needed to present to prove that eligibility. So she waited to speak to someone and picking up from the story, “After half an hour, she followed prompts to schedule a callback, but an automated voice announced slots were full and instructed her to wait on hold again. An hour later, the call was dropped.” It’s not really the fault of these workers. They cannot possibly do what needs to be done, and, once again, it’s the patients who are paying the price.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. Also, as always, you can email us your questions or comments. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, for now, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Joanne.

Kenen: I’m mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. Occasionally I’m still on X, but not very often, that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I am @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith, depending on the platform.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk [on X and Threads]. Still mostly on X, but also on Threads at the same name.

Rovner: We’re all trying to branch out. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Congress narrowly avoided a federal government shutdown for the second time in as many months, as House Democrats provided the needed votes for new House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson to avoid his first legislative catastrophe of his brief tenure. But funding the federal government won’t get any easier when the latest temporary patches expire in early 2024. It seems House Republicans have not yet accepted that they cannot accomplish the steep spending cuts they want as long as the Senate and the White House are controlled by Democrats.

Meanwhile, a pair of investigations unveiled this week underscored the difficulty of obtaining needed long-term care for seniors. One, from KFF Health News and The New York Times, chronicles the financial toll on families for people who need help for activities of daily living. The other, from Stat, details how some insurance companies are using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny needed rehabilitation care for Medicare patients.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress passed a two-part continuing resolution this week that will prevent the federal government from shutting down when the current CR expires Nov. 18 at 12:01 a.m. The new measure extends some current spending levels, including funding for the FDA, through Jan. 19. The rest of federal agencies, including most of the Department of Health and Human Services, are extended to Feb. 2.
• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said he wants to use the next two months to finish work on individual appropriations bills, none of which have passed both the House and Senate so far. The problem: They would deeply cut many popular federal programs. They also are full of changes to abortion restrictions and transgender policies, highlighting the split between the GOP caucus’ far-right wing and its more moderate members.
• In the wake of abortion rights successes in passing abortion rights ballot initiatives, new efforts are taking shape in Ohio and Michigan among state lawmakers who are arguing that when Dobbs turned this decision back to states, it meant to the state legislatures — not to the courts or voters. Most experts agree the approach is unlikely to prevail. Still, it highlights continuing efforts to change the rules surrounding this polarized issue.
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) — who was the only remaining Republican presidential candidate pushing for a national, 15-week abortion ban — suspended his campaign last week. He, along with former Vice President Mike Pence, who bowed out of the race at the end of October, were the field’s strongest anti-abortion candidates. This seems to suggest that the 15-week ban is not drawing voter support, even among Republicans. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s front-runner by miles, continues to be willing to play both sides of the abortion debate.
• Amid increasing concern about the use of artificial intelligence in health care, a California class-action lawsuit charges that UnitedHealth Group is using algorithms to deny rehabilitation care to enrollees in its Medicare Advantage program. The suit comes in the wake of an investigation by Stat into insurer requirements that case managers hew to the AI estimates of how long the company would pay for rehabilitation care, regardless of the patient’s actual medical situation.
• More than 10 million people have lost Medicaid coverage since states began reviewing eligibility earlier in the year. Advocates for Medicaid patients worry that the Biden administration has not done enough to ensure that people who are still eligible for the program — particularly children — are not mistakenly terminated.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts,” by Amy Maxmen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead,” by Jack Healy.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “UnitedHealth Pushed Employees to Follow an Algorithm to Cut Off Medicare Patients’ Rehab Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Facing Financial Ruin as Costs Soar for Elder Care,” by Reed Abelson, The New York Times, and Jordan Rau.
• JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Jacob Wallace, et al.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Congress Kicks the (Budget) Can Down the Road. Again.

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So the federal government is not going to shut down when the current continuing spending resolution expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. In basically a rerun of what happened at the end of September, new House Speaker Mike Johnson ended up having to turn to Democrats to pass another CR. This one extends a bunch of federal programs until Jan.19 and the rest of them until Feb. 2. Most of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is in the latter category, but the FDA, because it’s funded through the Department of Agriculture, its spending bill would be in the group that’s funded only through Jan. 19. Don’t worry if you don’t remember that.

The stated goal here is to use the next two months, minus what’s likely to be a sizable Christmas break, to finish work on the individual appropriation bills, of which exactly zero of 12 have passed both the House and Senate and been sent to the president. Meanwhile, in just the last week, House Republicans have been unable to pass any of the individual appropriations they have brought to the floor and a few haven’t been able to even get to the floor. Yesterday, Republican leaders pulled the plug on the rest of the week’s floor schedule, literally in the middle of a series of votes on the HHS spending bill. So Democrats are not going to bail them out on these individual bills the way they have on the relatively clean continuing resolutions because the individual bills include very deep spending cuts and lots of abortion and transgender and other culture wars riders. So what exactly do they think is going to change between now and the next deadline?

Ollstein: Well, there’s been a lot of chatter about how cranky members of Congress have gotten because they worked 10 weeks in a row. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without destroying each other, but there it is. And so there’s the hope that when they come back …

Rovner: Yes, there were threats of physical violence this week.

Ollstein: And allegedly some actual physical violence. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without assaulting our colleagues, but we are not members of Congress. So the idea is they could take some time to cool off and come back and be more collaborative, but really this is a problem the Republican Caucus has not been able to solve. You have dissent on the right of the caucus and the sort of more moderate left or more left side of the caucus. You have moderate members who are worried about getting reelected in districts that voted for [President Joe] Biden who are not wanting to vote for these spending bills that are full of anti-trans and anti-abortion provisions, which you could easily picture that being used against them in campaign ads. And then you have folks on the far right in the Freedom Caucus who are sort of tanking these individual bills to protest the overall trajectory of spending and the overall process. So this is not going away anytime soon. And, like you said, Democrats are not bailing them out here.

Cohrs: One other point I wanted to make, sorry, Julie, on the deadlines is that for people who are interested in health policy and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform and DSH [Medicaid’s Disproportionate Share Hospital] cuts, all of those. Those all have a Jan. 19 deadline. So those will come with the first round. So I think for the people out there who are worried about those policies, community health centers, extenders, that will happen with the first deadline even though the full Labor, HHS preparations aren’t until the second one.

Rovner: Yeah, these continuing resolutions do carry some of these extraneous, what we like to call “extender,” provisions that would otherwise have expired. And so they’ll keep them going for another couple of months and keep lobbyists busy wringing their hands and keep all of our inboxes full of emails of people warning of terrible things that will happen if these programs aren’t continued. But I want to go back to the underlying problem here, though, is that first of all, the conservative Republicans say they want to put the budget on a different trajectory. Well, discretionary spending, which is what we’re talking about here with the 12 spending bills, is a tiny portion of what makes up the budget and the budget deficit. So even if they were to cut all of these programs as dramatically as they like, they wouldn’t have much of an impact on the overall budget. I’m sort of mystified that people don’t keep pointing that out.

Ollstein: Well, and they’re also cutting things that won’t save money. I mean, they wanted to cut things like IRS enforcement, which would lose money because then the IRS wouldn’t be going after wealthy tax cheats and recouping that government spending. And so some of this is ideological. They’re going after health care programs that support LGBT people, for instance, and that doesn’t save that much money. But there’s been a lot of speeches from Republicans railing against the substance of the programs and calling them “woke” and inappropriate and such. And so, yes, some of this is fiscal, but a lot of it is also ideological.

Kenen: Yeah, it’s a relatively small portion of federal dollars, but a relatively large portion of culture war.

Rovner: Yes, I think that is a very good way to put it because, of course, it’s a place where they can put culture war things because they have to come up every year. But yeah, I think that’s why we end up fighting over this. All right, well this fight has been put off until 2024, although it’ll be the first thing when we get back.

Kenen: Yeah. And nothing’s really going to change except maybe cooler heads prevail. Anyone see any cooler heads around there? They may come back a little bit more personally tolerant when they’ve had some time off over the holidays. But the basic ideological and political alignment and the loggerheads, it’s like the only thing that changes between November, December, and January is it’s colder here then.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s exactly correct. Yeah. The far right of the House Republican Caucus is going to have to realize that there is a Senate and there is a president and they all get a say in what these final bills look like too. So they can’t just dictate we’re going to make all these cuts and, if not, we’re going to close down the government, unless that’s what they decide to do.

Kenen: But I think they skipped that session in their orientation.

Rovner: Yeah. Apparently.

Kenen: They’re not finding, “OK, where’s the compromise? What do we really, really, really want? And what are we willing to trade that for?” They’re not doing that. If you give and take, everybody gets some victory, and you have to identify what victory you can get that satisfies you. But there’s no sign of any kind of realistic grasp that this is divided government.

Rovner: Right. And they yet to figure that out. All right, well let us turn to abortion, where there is always news. We are going to start in Ohio, where last week voters, by a pretty healthy margin, approved a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Now, though, some anti-abortion lawmakers in Ohio say, “Never mind, we can overrule that.” Really, Alice?

Ollstein: So there are efforts going on in both Ohio and Michigan to block, undo, undermine what voters voted for in these referenda and, based on talking to sources, it seems like neither of these really have legs. They’re sort of seen as just messaging. But I think that even the attempt to try to undermine or undo what voters overwhelmingly approved is telling and interesting. And, of course, it builds on all of the attempts leading up to the votes that we saw from these same forces to try to change the rules, make it more difficult. So I think when state legislatures around the country come back into session in January, we’re going to be watching closely to see if they pass things that aim to block these votes. So definitely something to keep an eye on.

Rovner: I did see that this speaker of the Ohio House has poured at least some cold water on this effort. The argument had been from some of these lawmakers that because the Supreme Court gave this decision back to the states, that means only state legislatures and not the courts and not the voters directly. Am I interpreting that right?

Kenen: Yeah, the speaker was pretty firm. He said … what did he say? It was “Schoolhouse Rock”? He basically said that the voters, they matter.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: And what’s interesting is that the court that they want to cut out of this in Ohio is very conservative. And so this isn’t like, “Oh, we want to block these liberal activist judges from weighing in here.” This is “We want to keep this solely in the hands of the legislature and not have, really, courts have a role in it at all,” although the courts are very conservative and tilt in the anti-abortion direction anyway, which I think is notable.

Rovner: We’ll definitely watch that space in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes. Well, elsewhere, in Alabama, in a story that I didn’t think got the coverage it deserved, the Justice Department is joining a case brought by an abortion fund and some former abortion providers about whether the state might be able to prosecute them for helping women travel to obtain an abortion in another state. Department of Justice says, “Of course, states can’t prevent people from traveling to other states for things that are legal in another state, but not in their state. Otherwise, very few people would be able to go to Las Vegas.” But the state attorney general has yet threatened to try to prosecute, has he not?

Ollstein: Yeah, so this is happening in a few states, but it’s sort of come to a head in Alabama in terms of treating groups that either provide material support for people to travel across state lines for an abortion or even just information, even just “Here’s a clinic that you can call in this other state.” Not even a formal referral, medical referral, but just information about where to go. The attorney general has threatened to consider that kind of a criminal conspiracy to violate Alabama’s abortion ban.

So this is an interesting test, and I think it may — like the travel bans we’ve been seeing proposed and even implemented in some cities, states, et cetera. They’re sort of trying a bunch of different things. But these are basically impossible to enforce. And so, really, what’s happening here is an attempt to undo some of the chilling effect of these laws. Right now, people are so afraid of being charged with criminal conspiracy that they’re holding off on, even providing publicly available information that’s likely protected by the First Amendment. And so they’re hoping that a court ruling saying “You do have the right to at least discuss this and even give people support to travel” will undo some of that chilling effect. And yeah, I think that’s sort of the key here.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, moving on to Texas, where a lot of these other travel bans have been tried, at least in some cities and counties, we want to go back to that case where a half a dozen women who couldn’t get care for pregnancy complications, because of the state’s abortion ban, sued. Well, now there are 22 plaintiffs in that case, including two doctors and a then-medical student who discovered her fetus’s lethal abnormalities at an 18-week scan. The Texas Supreme Court is supposed to hear this case later this month, but, Alice, this could really end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, couldn’t it? This is the concern of women who are not trying to have abortions. They were basically trying to complete pregnancies and have had things go terribly wrong. And, as you just said, doctors are afraid to treat them for fear that they’re going to be prosecuted.

Ollstein: Yeah. And so this is where state abortion bans are running up against federal protections for … you have to treat a patient who comes in who’s experiencing a medical emergency. This is the EMTALA, a federal law, and these things are in conflict. Anti-abortion groups and advocates say that they are not, and that medical care in these situations is already protected. But as we’ve seen with this chilling effect, doctors are afraid to act in these situations and they’re telling patients to go away and come back when things are more dire. And that, in some cases, in these plaintiff’s cases, has led to pretty permanent damage, damage to their future fertility, threats to their lives. And so these cases are not seeking to get rid of the abortion bans entirely, as some other lawsuits are, but they are seeking to really make clear, because it’s not clear to medical providers right now, make clear what is allowed in these really sensitive and precarious medical situations.

Rovner: Yeah, I keep hearing a lot of the anti-abortion forces saying, “Well, it’s not technically an abortion in these cases. If it’s an ectopic pregnancy or something or the woman’s water has broken early and she’s going to get septic.” And it’s like, “Except that medically, yes, they are. A termination of pregnancy is termination of pregnancy.” And that’s why the doctors are saying, “You can call this anything you want. We’re the ones who are going to get thrown in jail and lose our medical licenses.” All right. Well, before we move on, I want to talk some abortion politics. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who had been the only Republican presidential candidate strongly pushing for a federal 15-week abortion ban, suspended his campaign this week after what happened in Virginia last week, which we talked about at some length. When Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin tried to win back the state legislature for Republicans by promising to sign his own 15-week ban and lost spectacularly. Where does that leave Republicans on abortion going into 2024? Obviously, the 15-week ban as a compromise doesn’t seem to be flying.

Ollstein: No, it’s certainly not. And Tim Scott and Mike Pence were some of anti-abortion groups’ favorite candidates who were saying what they wanted to hear, and both of their campaigns have now ended. And so, meanwhile, you have the people who have been a little more squishy, from anti-abortion advocates’ perspective anyways, like Nikki Haley and [former President Donald] Trump himself, doing the best. DeSantis also sort of middling right now on the downward trajectory, seemingly.

Rovner: DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in Florida.

Ollstein: Exactly, but was also kind of unclear about what he would do as president, which the anti-abortion groups did not like. It’s interesting, maybe telling, that the people who were sort of the staunchest anti-abortion voices have not seemed to do well in this moment, but let’s be real. Trump is the far-and-away front-runner here. It’s most important to examine Trump. And he’s sort of trying to have it both ways. He’s both touting his anti-abortion bona fides by talking about appointing the justices to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, taking credit for that. And at the same time sort of pushing this line of, “Oh, we’ll strike some sort of compromise.” He really talks up exemptions for rape and incest, which, by the way, a lot of anti-abortion groups don’t want those. And so he’s sort of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but, at least according to the polls, it seems to be working.

Rovner: Yeah, maybe that’s the answer for Republicans is tell everybody what you think they want them to know. I guess we will see going forward. Well, I want to move on. I’m calling this next segment, “Getting Old Sucks: Ask Me How I Know.” I want to start with a joint project that KFF Health News has out this week with The New York Times called “Dying Broke.” It’s about, and stop me if you’ve heard me say this before, the fact that the U.S. has no policy to help pay for long-term care, save for Medicaid, which only pays if you basically bankrupt yourself and your family.

There is a lot in this series, and I highly recommend it, but one of the things that jumped out to me is that the cost of long-term care has risen so much faster than incomes that even if you started saving for retirement in your 20s — I started saving for retirement in my 20s — you’d still be unlikely to have enough to self-insure for long-term care when you’re 75 or 80. Joanne, you’ve spent as much time as I have, probably more, writing about our lack of a long-term care policy. Anything jump out at you from this project?

Kenen: It was a terrific, terrific story, and it brought to life that even people who are definitely what you would think of as economically comfortable, it’s not enough. It’s just the luck of the draw, right? I mean, if you die fast, you can at least leave money to your kids. If you die slow, you can’t. It was a really good story. But what I always am left with when I read these stories is it doesn’t make a difference. Congress does not want to deal with this. Julie and I actually did a panel for a health group a few weeks ago, and one of the state … someone from California came up to talk about us and asked, “Why doesn’t the United States have a long-term care policy? I’m going to change that.” And we were trying to be polite, but it was like, “OK, good luck with that.” And this is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both get old and Republicans and Democrats both end up needing long-term care, whether it’s in the nursing home or assistance in your own home. Republicans and Democrats both get Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. They both get disabled. And we have a government that just plugs up its ears because it costs so much money and it’s an entitlement and they just don’t even want to deal with it. And generation after generation, it’s a disaster. It’s inhumane.

Rovner: And, of course, there was this brief effort in the Affordable Care Act with the CLASS Act that everybody was very excited …

Kenen: To nibble around the edges of it. The CLASS Act was good, but it wasn’t even solving the problem.

Rovner: And it went away because they discovered that even that was going to be too expensive. It could not be self-sustaining. And that’s been the problem with the private long-term care insurance market too, that you basically can’t get private long-term care insurance anymore because insurers cannot afford to sell it. They lose too much money on it, and therefore it would be too expensive if they actually charged what they needed to to even break even.

Kenen: Right. And there is an idea circulating, but it’s not getting any traction. It’s circulated in the past too, a joint approach, a reinsurance approach, that you’d try to strengthen the private long-term care insurance market, which is very broken. You’d try to fix that, but you wouldn’t expect the private insurance market to do the whole problem, so that there’d be reinsurance from the government. So for people who had maybe, I don’t know exactly how it works, say a year or two of expenses that private insurance would kick in and we would make that market work better and be there when you needed it. But then if you were somebody who had multiple years and you exhausted that benefit, there would be a backup entitlement.

Rovner: But I’ve heard this talked about for at least 10 years, and it’s never gone anywhere.

Kenen: It’s revived and it’s not getting … I don’t think it has a sponsor in this Congress. It did in the last Congress. There’s no discussion. There’s no … a lot of people think that Medicare actually pays for nursing homes, and then that’s a pretty big surprise because it only pays for very limited … it pays, like if you have surgery and you need some rehab at a nursing home for, what is it? Is it 12 weeks? I forget what it is, but it’s short-term. It’s a couple of months. It’s not dementia care. And even the other thing is when you read about the cost of long-term care, that’s just the room and board, that doesn’t include your doctors’ bills, your medication, clothing, personal aide, because people who are complicated and need a lot of care often need a personal aide in addition to the staff. It’s just a phenomenal amount of money. My kids don’t understand when I say we need to save money, they say, “Don’t you have enough?” And no, nobody has enough. Bill Gates has enough.

Rovner: Yeah, Warren Buffett has enough. Well, so, as I mentioned, one of the big problems with long-term care is that there’s essentially no private insurance for it anymore because it’s so expensive and because so many people end up needing it. That’s very different from Medicare Advantage, where insurers are and have been making lots of money providing benefits that would otherwise be paid for by the federal government. But Rachel, some of your colleagues have discovered that, and in at least some cases, those insurers are making all that money because they’re denying care to patients who need it. This is your extra credit this week, but I want you to talk about it now.

Cohrs: I’ll talk about it early. Yes. So my colleagues, Casey Ross and Bob Herman have been digging into the role of algorithms in insurance decisions for the past year. And they just released a new story this week about — with internal documents of a subsidiary called naviHealth of UnitedHealth — showing that the company was instructing managers to keep care timelines for a really expensive rehab that older people, I think, need after having injuries or something like that within 1% of the time that this algorithm was predicting, regardless of what their actual human doctors were saying. And truly, the stories behind these care denials are just really horrifying … of somebody who had a knee surgery and was expected to slide on their butt down the stairs because they weren’t paying for rehab. Families who’ve had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket after this care was denied because they saw that their loved one clearly needed money, and there was a class-action lawsuit filed, then after the story was published, by people who had deceased relatives who had UnitedHealthcare MA plans, and were denied rehab and later died. And so I think it’s just really eye-opening as to the actual instructions by managers inside the company saying that this is your expectation, and if you’re not keeping coverage care rehab timelines within this 1% margin, then you aren’t performing up to our standards.

Rovner: So this is basically AI being used to deny care. We keep talking about AI and health care. This is it, right? This is an algorithm that says, “Person who goes into rehab with these kinds of problems should only need 19 days.” And if you need more than that, tough. That’s essentially what’s going on here, right?

Cohrs: And the lawsuit did highlight as well that when people did appeal, they won most of the time, but most people didn’t appeal, and the company knew that. And so I think that was also part of the lawsuit that came up. It’s hard to prove intent with these things or what is a denial based on an algorithm? But I think this lays out the case in as explicit terms as we’ve ever seen from the internal side.

Rovner: It does. All right, well let us move on from Medicare to Medicaid, the unwinding — involving reviewing everyone on the program to make sure they’re still eligible now that the pandemic emergency has expired — continues with more than 10 million people now having lost their coverage, according to the tracker being updated by my KFF colleagues. And state Medicaid directors are predicting a year-over-year decrease in enrollment of 8.6%, which is pretty dramatically large. We also know that more than 70% of those being disenrolled may in fact still be eligible, but the state was unable to locate them or they didn’t file the right paperwork. Ironically, even with a much smaller caseload, state Medicaid spending is likely to rise because the additional payments that were provided by the federal government also expired at the end of the public health emergency. So states are basically having to pay more per enrollee than they were paying even when they were leaving everybody on the rolls. Advocates have been complaining all year that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to ensure that states aren’t tossing people off who should still be covered. Has anything changed on that front? I know that the administration is sort of caught between this rock and a hard place. They don’t want to come out guns blazing and have states saying that they’re making this politicized. On the other hand, the numbers are getting pretty big and there’s increasing evidence that a lot of the people who are being relieved of their coverage should still have it.

Ollstein: Including a lot of children who absolutely did not do anything wrong in this situation. And so it kind of reminds me of some stuff during covid, where the Biden administration did not want to get into a public fight with GOP-controlled states and was trying to negotiate behind the scenes to get the policies they wanted to protect people. But at the same time, not wanting that open confrontation means that a lot of this is continuing to go on unchecked. And so the data is coming out showing that a lot of people who are losing coverage are not reenrolling in other coverage. Some are, but a lot are not. And so I think now that we’re getting, going to get into Obamacare open enrollment, I think that’ll be really key to see — can we scoop up a lot of these newly uninsured people?

Rovner: And we did, we saw the administration put out a press release saying that the early part of open enrollment has seemed very large, much larger-than-expected enrollment. And you kind of wonder, I’m kind of wondering, how many of those people were people who got kicked off of Medicaid. And, of course, we know that when people got kicked off of Medicaid, they were supposed to be steered to the Affordable Care Act, for which they would’ve obviously been eligible. But I’m wondering whether some of those people didn’t get steered and now that they’re seeing that enrollment is open, it’s like, “Oh, maybe I can get this.” I have not seen anybody answer that question, but it’s certainly a question in my mind.

Cohrs: Right. And coverage is more affordable as well because subsidies from the covid-era spending bills do extend through 2025. But again, people might see increases in costs once those end, if Congress doesn’t extend them. So even if we do see some people moving from Medicaid to ACA enrollment, then there’s a chance that they could see spikes in a pretty short amount of time.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ll be curious to see as open enrollment continues, whether they can break down where some of those people are coming from. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation.” I have chosen a KFF Health News story, which is also my extra credit this week, from science journalist Amy Maxmen, called “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts.” It seems that in Texas health departments and other organizations funded by the states are now prohibited from advertising or recommending covid vaccines or even saying that they are available, unless that’s in conjunction with telling them about other vaccines that are available, too. In Florida, as we have talked about here before, the health department has issued specific guidance recommending against the new covid vaccine for children and teens and now men under the age of 40. Unless you think this hasn’t had any impact before the vaccines were available, Democrats and Republicans were dying of covid in roughly equal proportions in Florida and Ohio, according to a study published earlier this summer in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

But by the end of 2021, which was the first full year that covid vaccines were widely available, Republicans had an excess death rate of 43% higher than Democrats. So medical misinformation has consequences. All right, now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you’ve done yours already. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a very depressing one out of The New York Times by Jack Healy and it’s called “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead.” And it is about these fraudulent, scammy addiction treatment facilities in Arizona, but it notes that they do exist in other states as well, that have been bilking the state Medicaid program for just millions and millions and millions of dollars and providing inadequate or nonexistent treatment to really vulnerable people in need, with very deadly consequences. And the places profiled in this piece really went after Native American folks specifically. So very sad report, but it sounds like more attention on this is leading to the state cracking down on places like this. So, hopefully, we’ll make some progress there.

Rovner: Yeah, quite a story, Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story, part of an ongoing series from Mississippi Today, in conjunction with ProPublica’s local reporting network: “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards.” It’s by Isabella Taft. In Mississippi, if you’re unfortunate enough to have such serious mental illness that a court orders you to have treatment and there’s no room in a state hospital, they put you in jail while you wait for a room in state hospitals. And sometimes they’re housed in these facilities or rooms that are meant for people with severe mental illness, but they’re awful. And sometimes they’re just housed with a regular prison population. And the sheriffs say, “Wait a minute, it’s not really our problem to be housing … state hospitals have to fix this.” And they have a point! But in the meantime, that’s who they have. That’s where they end up. They end up in these jails, these local jails, and the sheriffs are responsible. And only one hospital meets the state certification for what these people need.

And some of these stays. They’re not like two days, they can be prolonged. There’ve been a lot of deaths, there’ve been a lot of suicides. It’s a really pretty disturbing situation. It’s sort of the mental health crisis and the mental health provider shortage and countrywide really writ large among some of the most vulnerable people.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ve had four grim extra credits this week, but they’re all good stories. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. We’re going to take next week off, too, for the Thanksgiving holiday. As always, you can email us your comments or questions or your suggestions for our medical misinformation segment. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X, and at AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and rchohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on X, and I’m increasingly switched to Threads at @joannekenen1.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in two weeks. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).